The user title is a reference to my avatar - GZA from the Wu Tang Clan:
Anyway wry's got it pretty close. Listicles are silly and not really what history is about. How can you possibly declare one statesman, existing in a specific context with specific challenges, coming from a specific cultural background is better than another with totally different contexts, challenges, and backgrounds. It's ridiculous. So with these sorts of threads, rather than dragging on and on and on about best anything and rehashing generic figures we've all heard of (most of whom probably shouldn't be in the discussion anyway), we're better off talking about figures who interest us personally, people you might not have heard of. It's a far better endeavor than retreading this tired old thread.
Or if you prefer I could do a lengthy post about how Elizabeth I was an absolutely atrocious queen who ruthlessly burned Catholics, failed to resolve any of the myriad issues surrounding the state of the English Church, was indecisive in matters of great importance, allowed her dynasty to collapse, bankrupted the crown on frivolous and highly destructive endeavors in Ireland, France, and the Low Countries, thus creating a crisis which directly contributed to the collapse of the monarchy throughout the first half of the 17th century, particularly in 1636-46, and whose only reason for any kind of a positive lasting legacy exists because she was easy to use as a figurehead for 17th century protestants and the story subsequently got picked up by Whig historians in the mid-later 19th century for the umpteenth time.
.
