Top 5 Greatest Statesmen/Emperor/King/Queen/President in History

Flying Pig said:

Genghis Khan a statesman? And Heraclius, who lost most of the Middle East to the Arabs?

Click to expand...

Flying Pig said:

Over which he had rather little control, the poor man!

Click to expand...

Herakleios notably was practically bedridden for most of that time, utterly unable to exercise field command, and so had to watch - well, "hear about it a few weeks afterward" - as other men ran his last army into the ground.

Neither that nor the other thing have anything to do with his statesmanishness quality, but referring to any Roman Emperor as a "statesman" seems silly given their general disdain for diplomacy and ongoing pontification about universal empire.

1. Genghis Khan.

2. Augustus Caesar.

1. Genghis Khan.

Click to expand...

But would he be able to avoid an encirclement in the Po River valley?

Ajidica said:

But would he be able to avoid an encirclement in the Po River valley?

Click to expand...

Not that he ever got anywhere near the Po River valley. You're thinking Batu and Subutai.

Rant about how people seem to think Genghis Khan conquered all from Hungary to Korea; when in fact it was his successors, et centera

taillesskangaru said:

Not that he ever got anywhere near the Po River valley. You're thinking Batu and Subutai.

Rant about how people seem to think Genghis Khan conquered all from Hungary to Korea; when in fact it was his successors, et centera

Click to expand...

Nope, Temujin is a magical wizard who merely pointed to areas on the map and they fell under the control of the Mongol Empire. Tragedy struck when he broke his finger though. That's the only reason the Mongols didn't usurp all of Christendom.

Dachs said:

Neither that nor the other thing have anything to do with his statesmanishness quality, but referring to any Roman Emperor as a "statesman" seems silly given their general disdain for diplomacy and ongoing pontification about universal empire.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that you're thinking of 'statesmanship' in the context of relatively modern European and world history, in which there exist a large number of mutually-dependent countries, and most power tiers are occupied by numerous different countries, so diplomacy is essential - in the Roman world post-Augustus, international trade was nonexistant by today's standards, Rome had absolute hegemony over its general area and dominated almost all of the spheres of influence (with the notable exception of Persia) into which it tried to extend its power, so the need for diplomacy - not to mention the physical ability of an emperor who had to rule over the whole damned thing to go to one far-flung fringe of it to talk to a comparatively minor power - was far smaller than it is to a modern state. As such, diplomacy would have taken up far less of his job description, and so been far less important to a consideration of his overall performance - we might consider Alexander, who also seems to have made almost no diplomatic efforts of note in his career.

Cheezy the Wiz said:

west india man said:

Although López started the War of the Triple Alliance, it was Brazilian soldiers who killed most of the population.

Click to expand...

It was even more than that. The complete collapse of civilization in Paraguay brought on by the destruction of the Paraguayan government; four large armies marching back and forth foraging, fighting, and carrying diseases, together these things created a situation where horrid numbers died from disease and starvation. I even read about jaguars venturing into villages to hunt for the weakened humans, because their natural food sources had been so destroyed by the war, and because the humans in those villages were no longer capable of defending themselves.

Click to expand...

Yes, but López didn't start the war all by himself. Paraguay and Brazil both supported different sides in the Uruguayan internal conflicts (just like the bulk of Urquiza's forces were Brazilian conscripts when he overthrew Rosas) and it was a matter of tiem before hostilities began, as both sides were spoiling for a fight.

Argentine jumped in at the chance of doing a land-grab (the entire province of Misiones, good place for growing cotton) and so did Brazil. It was also good to destroy the example of a country that had achieved development on tis own without the assistance of any foreign capitals (Argentina was indebted already to Baring Brothers by that era, with officials pocketing chunks of the loans they negotiated), lest neighbouring countries and their peoples should wise up.

1. George W. Bush

JTWuest said:

1. George W. Bush

Click to expand...

1) Began the neccessary wars to destroy terrorist organisations in the Middle East which threatened the USA and it's Western allies safety and democracy.
2) Liberated the combined countries of Iraq and Afghanistan and undoubtedly added fuel to the fire of democracy movements globally. That is, at current population, 68 million more people living under far fairer and democratic modes of government then previous.
3) Prevented further domestic attacks on US soil after 9/11. Restored faith in American instituitions like the military and intellegence communities.
4) Renewed solidarity with Israel but also offered out an olive branch to the Palestinians by referring to a future "two state solution". No other President has uttered those words.
5) Funded mass Anti-AIDS/HIV drives in the most deprieved regions of Africa. Saving millions of lives and prolonging others. He has prevented untold agony and misery.
6) Removed one of the most evil despots of the past 5 decades in Saddam Hussein and destroyed the Taliban which wrecked Afghanistan's cultural history (massive buddhas ) and forced it's population to live under a hellish Islamic fundamentalist therocracy.

Probably loads of others too. GWB will get plenty of praise in the future by historians. It will take a few decades mind.

Quackers said:

1) Began the neccessary wars to destroy terrorist organisations in the Middle East which threatened the USA and it's Western allies safety and democracy.
2) Liberated the combined countries of Iraq and Afghanistan and undoubtedly added fuel to the fire of democracy movements globally. That is, at current population, 68 million more people living under far fairer and democratic modes of government then previous.
3) Prevented further domestic attacks on US soil after 9/11. Restored faith in American instituitions like the military and intellegence communities.
4) Renewed solidarity with Israel but also offered out an olive branch to the Palestinians by referring to a future "two state solution". No other President has uttered those words.
5) Funded mass Anti-AIDS/HIV drives in the most deprieved regions of Africa. Saving millions of lives and prolonging others. He has prevented untold agony and misery.
6) Removed one of the most evil despots of the past 5 decades in Saddam Hussein and destroyed the Taliban which wrecked Afghanistan's cultural history (massive buddhas ) and forced it's population to live under a hellish Islamic fundamentalist therocracy.

Probably loads of others too. GWB will get plenty of praise in the future by historians. It will take a few decades mind.

Click to expand...

Exactly what I said.


Actually, no. As you likely suspect, I was being facetious. With that said, of course he's done some good like funding AIDS work in Africa.

1) Necessary wars? Iraq? I don't even know what to say to that because it's so ridiculous. Frankly, I don't even understand how Afghanistan was necessary. The concept of offensive war as necessary is beyond me, period.

2) Frankly, I'd say that social media like Youtube has more to do with the Arab Spring than anything the US has done. The recent adoption of the new Egyptian Constitution shows that this wasn't people rising up for Jeffersonian Democracy.

3) After 9/11. Got it. Did you know that after Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin was the first astronaut to walk on the moon? Did you know that after George Washington, John Adams was the 1st US President? Did you know that after the Trail of Tears was over, Andrew Jackson committed no acts of ethnic cleansing? Come on, this sort of argument is laughable.

4) I think that speeches hardly a great leader make.

5) Good point!

6) Perhaps you should sign up for the US Marine Corp and go to Afghanistan and find out for yourself how destroyed the Taliban is right now! I remember well the news reports of the late 90's of Taliban agents shooting RPGs into Buddhist statues and as a historian I mourn for them. But come on, how much blood and treasure are they worth?

As for point 6)... I call sampling bias. The Taliban are strongest where the most Allied troops are, because, well, that's why Allied troops are in those places!

So, erm, it's the other way around. The most troops are where the freedom fighters/terrorists {delete whichever is inappropriate} are strongest!

To me, those two sentences mean the same thing, but the point stands - the parts of Afghanistan swarming with Allied troops are not good places to consider when working out how strong the Taliban are in Afghanistan. Indeed, even the Afghans think that Helmand is a backwards place rather like Norfolk.

Flying Pig said:

It seems to me that you're thinking of 'statesmanship' in the context of relatively modern European and world history, in which there exist a large number of mutually-dependent countries, and most power tiers are occupied by numerous different countries, so diplomacy is essential - in the Roman world post-Augustus, international trade was nonexistant by today's standards, Rome had absolute hegemony over its general area and dominated almost all of the spheres of influence (with the notable exception of Persia) into which it tried to extend its power, so the need for diplomacy - not to mention the physical ability of an emperor who had to rule over the whole damned thing to go to one far-flung fringe of it to talk to a comparatively minor power - was far smaller than it is to a modern state. As such, diplomacy would have taken up far less of his job description, and so been far less important to a consideration of his overall performance - we might consider Alexander, who also seems to have made almost no diplomatic efforts of note in his career.

Click to expand...

But that's the problem: the definition of statesmanship basically rides on diplomatic ability, whether it is external diplomacy or internal-political diplomacy. An autocrat ruling a world empire wouldn't really have to deal in statesmanship to any meaningful degree; there's no faction-balancing, no government of mutual satisfaction, no compromise. Few Roman Emperors ever really had to try that sort of thing at all to any real degree; the closest was Eirene, by virtue of being a woman, and even with her gifts she had very serious problems managing the problems she faced. I wouldn't refer to her as a "statesman", even though she was probably one of the most brilliant political minds in Byzantine history. As for Alexander, one can hardly say that he governed at all.

One doesn't have to have been a "good statesman" to have been a "good ruler", obviously, and the latter definitely does not imply the former at all. I actually took the mention of "statesman" in the thread title to have been meant to include persons who were not actual sovereigns or elected executives who were, at the same time, very politically and/or diplomatically adept - like Dorgon, the viscount Castlereagh, M. Vipsanius Agrippa, or the count-duke of Olivares.

A statesman is somebody who 'steers the ship of state'; that is, one who manipulates international events, usually for the benefit of his own country. You're entirely right with the second paragraph there, which recognises the fact that people who are not actually heads of state still have a large influence in international affairs. Obviously, in modern history, for the reasons that I outlined before, this is intrinsically linked with diplomacy, but it isn't necessarily so: international events can be manipulated by warfare, for example. With this in mind, 'statesmanship' can also mean the successful management of war and peace, as practiced by Augustus and Hadrian - the latter of which can take credit for averting, through negotiation, a war with Parthia in 121.

I'm less sure that we use 'statesman' to imply expertise in domestic rulership when that does not coincide with international leadership; we'd probably use 'governor' or 'politician' (ie, 'Gladstone was a good governor and an able politician, but a poor statesman')

Dachs said:

But that's the problem: the definition of statesmanship basically rides on diplomatic ability, whether it is external diplomacy or internal-political diplomacy. An autocrat ruling a world empire wouldn't really have to deal in statesmanship to any meaningful degree; there's no faction-balancing, no government of mutual satisfaction, no compromise. Few Roman Emperors ever really had to try that sort of thing at all to any real degree; the closest was Eirene, by virtue of being a woman, and even with her gifts she had very serious problems managing the problems she faced. I wouldn't refer to her as a "statesman", even though she was probably one of the most brilliant political minds in Byzantine history. As for Alexander, one can hardly say that he governed at all.

One doesn't have to have been a "good statesman" to have been a "good ruler", obviously, and the latter definitely does not imply the former at all. I actually took the mention of "statesman" in the thread title to have been meant to include persons who were not actual sovereigns or elected executives who were, at the same time, very politically and/or diplomatically adept - like Dorgon, the viscount Castlereagh, M. Vipsanius Agrippa, or the count-duke of Olivares.

Click to expand...

In that case I chose Machiavelli!

JTWuest said:

In that case I chose Machiavelli!

Click to expand...

Machiavelli never really accomplished much of anything during his times in office though, didn't he? He may have had the philosophy of foreign affairs down pat, but I don't recall him doing so well in practice.

a Turkish phrase has it that those who can't can always teach .

It's probably worth pointing out that there is no scholarly consensus as to how far Machiavelli was writing seriously in Il Principe - certainly his Discourses on Livy suggest that he was personally a republican. My preferred interpretation is that Il Principe, far from being a guide to how leaders should behave, is in fact an exposition of how they actually do.

This subject is getting really trite because of how often it comes up.

Flying Pig said:

It's probably worth pointing out that there is no scholarly consensus as to how far Machiavelli was writing seriously in Il Principe - certainly his Discourses on Livy suggest that he was personally a republican. My preferred interpretation is that Il Principe, far from being a guide to how leaders should behave, is in fact an exposition of how they actually do.

Click to expand...

His use of subjunctive verbs ("a prince ought to care little...") seems to deflate that reading. It's pretty much agreed that the Prince was written to get himself back into office, making it either a satire (my inclination) or a half-hearted bunch of crap that he didn't really believe in (also plausible).