I've always been a fan of pointless speculation threads, and concepts that as far as I know are completely impossible to implement are among the most blunted of the pointless! So on with the opining! (I didn't even know that "opine" had a gerund form until this second.) I just finished a sourcebook on Pericles and was struck by how well his traits fit him, but also how well a couple others would too. Imp. seems natural, since the Athenian Empire was essentially his doing (moving the Delian League treasury from Delos to Athens was for all intents and purposes the final step) and he was regarded by the philosophers, orators, and statesmen of the day as the single greatest speaker in a city of eloquence. While only 3 of his speeches have survived (and one - the funeral oration - was probably written by Hypatia at least in part), if Herodotus's accounts and retellings can be believed, he managed in one 10-page long speech to get the Athenians to go from calling for his expulsion to giving him a fine and then re-electing to his generalship. The Achaemenid Empire under Cyrus is still studied today as a prime example of centralized government, which is no small feat given that it was almost 1,000 years before the world saw a larger empire (for reference, it encompassed about 25% more land that the Roman Empire at its height, and around 500 years earlier). While how much of that was Cyrus's doing could be argued, I'd say that Org. would fit the bill nicely. While it wasn't exactly traditional imperial expansionism, one could certainly make a case for Otto von Bismarck's vision (and flawless implementation) of a unified Germany as rationale for Imp. Perhaps it warrants its own trait, something like "Magnificent Bastard."