Best World Leader.

TheDominatorDom

Chieftain
Joined
May 16, 2008
Messages
17
Location
Calgary, AB
Who do you think was the Best World leader and why?
-cant be yourself
-by world leader i mean: anyone thats run a country epmire etc.
-Cant be a future leader like Obama.
 
are future ones acceptable?

because if so than it would have to be me. why? biggest empire in the world, highest gdp per capita and best standard of living.
 
In terms of what criteria? Or is that left up to us?
 
Impossible to say without criteria. My personal favourite is Napoleon, but I wouldn't claim he was the "best."
 
Possibly Queen Victoria.

I don't think you can call every leader a "World Leader" but she led a great percentage of the world in population and land area. She was a true World Leader.

And I think she was the best because her reign saw rapid progress of not just her country and empire but also the rest of the world. The British Empire was so far ahead of everyone else. There was relative peace in her realm and stability.

She's also loved and remembered by many.
 
Out of modern rulers in power right now...I am a pretty big fan of Felipe Calderon in Mexico.
 
Peter the Great, if you look in context of his time/nation...
 
Probably my favorite world leader would be Antiochos III Megas, ruler of the Arche Seleukeia from 222 to 187 BC(E). It's not that he was a universally perfect ruler - in fact, he is perhaps best known for losing two great battles of the classical age, those of Raphia (217) and Magnesia (190), the latter of which cemented Rome's ascendancy in the Mediterranean and nearly erased all of Antiocho's prodigious gains.

What I find most impressive about Antiochos was what he managed to do successfully. Upon his ascension, the Arche Seleukeia was a total mess; the Pahlavan and Baktrians had basically overrun the eastern quarter of the empire, the Ptolemaioi had successfully managed to invade Babylonia in the previous years, usurpers dotted Asia Mikra, and the imperial finances were in a terrible state. Once he dumped his terrible ministers, chief among them being Hermeias, though, he reorganized the empire, successfully subdued Asia Mikra, and forced the Baktrians and the Pahlavan to come to heel, winning the Battle of the Areios River against Euthydemos in audacious fashion against the best cavalry in the world, the kataphraktoi that he later adopted for his own use. He reversed the outcome of Raphia twenty years after the fact with the victory at Panion, which ended Ptolemaic suzerainty in Ioudaia and Syria forever. It was he who came closest to reestablishing the borders of the empire of Alexandros (well, he and his illustrious predecessor, Seleukos I Nikator), with his expedition into Greece.

But essentially what we have here is a fairly enigmatic figure who was one of the greatest and most powerful rulers of his time and who wasn't universally successful and learned from his mistakes. It was only on the outcome of the events of a single day that sent the edifice of his life's work, the reestablishment of the Arche Seleukeia, tumbling down. And even then, the empire was still extant afterwards, putting up a highly respectable resistance to the Pahlavan up to the final expedition of Antiochos VII Sidetes that reclaimed Mesopotamia and Media, if only ephemerally.

Other rulers I rate pretty highly include Herakleios, Eastern Roman Emperor, who brilliantly repelled the Sassanid Persians from their invasion in the early seventh century. In 622, the year Herakleios began his campaigns, the Sassanian armies stood on the Bosphorus. Seven years later, after an epic series of campaigns fought in such locales as the old battlefield of Issos, where Alexandros had defeated Darius III a millennium prior; Armenia and Atropatene, where Herakleios played a dangerous diplomatic game with the Khazars; a march to Aspandana (Esfahan), the deepest reach by a Roman army into Iran; and finally culminating with an epic battle at the ruins of Nineveh, where Herakleios personally slew the royal general Rhahzadh - after all that, Herakleios utterly defeated the Sassanid armies, but demanded no territorial cessions, in a spirit of clemency and a wish for the same excellent Roman-Persian relations that had persisted during the later reign of Mauricius. It stains his image terribly to have been the emperor on watch when the Muslim Arabs began their tide of conquest; had he not had the dropsy, perhaps the advance spearheaded by the genial Arab general Khalid ibn al-Walid would have been ********.

I'm also a pretty big fan of Mithridates I the Philhellene, who set the Pahlavan back on track to being a Great Power after the successes of Antiochos Megas. The military victories and fiscal reorganizations of Friedrich II of Prussia put him pretty high up there, too; his epic engagements, the crowning achievement of which was the Battle of Leuthen, were just plain awesome. Taizong of Tang is almost a required entry, too; the victories he scored, first under Gaozu and later as Emperor himself, are simply stunning, and the contrast that can be made between his reign and the autocracy of the Sui that preceded him is nothing short of striking. To round out the list, I suppose I'll include al-Mansur, the vizier who led the Caliphate of Cordoba at the turn of the millennium - he came close to reversing the tide of the reconquista, although to achieve his victories in the short term he made some very serious decisions, like the importation of Berber mercenaries that, like the use of the Turks as a military 'caste' in the Abbasid Caliphate, became a major political problem later on and facilitated the creation of the Almoravid state.
Out of modern rulers in power right now...I am a pretty big fan of Felipe Calderon in Mexico.
Yo he said 'was'. :p
 
Possibly Queen Victoria.

I don't think you can call every leader a "World Leader" but she led a great percentage of the world in population and land area. She was a true World Leader.

And I think she was the best because her reign saw rapid progress of not just her country and empire but also the rest of the world. The British Empire was so far ahead of everyone else. There was relative peace in her realm and stability.

She's also loved and remembered by many.
Come on Bast, we all know you like Queen Victoria because she had breasts.

By right, isnt he just a secretary of State?
You don't think Nixon was actually running the country, do you? One does not have to be the Head of State to actually be running a nation. Bismarck, who has to be up there on this list, was not a titular ruler, and neither are the vast majority of Prime Ministers, Premiers, etc.

Kissinger had more say in how things were done, particularly foreign policy matters, than Nixon did. All that said, he was about as effective at all this as Cheney is now. That is to say, he accomplishes everything he wants, but it doesn't last, and was a stupid idea to begin with.
 
There was relative peace in her realm and stability.
Relative peace?
Crimean war, Anglo-afghan wars, Boer wars, Angloe-Sikh wars, Anlgo-Zulu wars, Boxer rebellion, Madhist war, Anglo-Egyptian war. etc. all happend during her reign
 
Yo he said 'was'. :p

The way things are going, he might be a was pretty soon :( I just hope the PRI doesn't come back into power anytime soon.

All time, Cyrus the Great and Napoleon are pretty fly.
 
@ Dach i am pretty surpriced that you mentioned those guys and not the -guys with the great on his name. Both Alexander and Cyrus the Great was .... great leaders.IMHO. And i ask you this because reading your posts i assume you do have justification for your choices and you do know what you are talking about...

Napoleon , not so much... Augustus , Julius and the Handrian where good emperors of Rome IMO. For France i will go for Cardinal Richelieu , the "Father" of French Monarchy and he certainly helped the effort of the war against HRE ...
 
Alexander was a great conqueror, not a great leader. Julius was never Emperor.
 
@ Dach i am pretty surpriced that you mentioned those guys and not the -guys with the great on his name.
First off: my username is 'Dachs', not 'Dach'. Dach means roof. Dachs means badger. Secondly, learn what 'Megas' means in Greek. Hint: it means 'the Great'. :p
@N1k1T0$ said:
And i ask you this because reading your posts i assume you do have justification for your choices and you do know what you are talking about...
Because 'best' is not well defined by the OP. I chose to see it as rulers who make history interesting, as well as ruling well.
@N1k1T0$ said:
Handrian where good emperors of Rome IMO.
This is the same Hadrianus we're talking about that spent a significant chunk of his time fiddling around with Aristonous, right? :p Dude crushed the Bar Kochba revolt ably enough, I will admit, and abandoning Mesopotamia was sound. But personally I think that Aurelianus and Septimius Severus were better Emperors, while Gallienus is one of my own favorites not for skill - which he did have, anyway; having to deal with the era of the Thirty Tyrants was no picnic, and somehow Rome wasn't utterly destroyed during his tenure - but for the story that he made and for being underrated.
@N1k1T0$ said:
For France i will go for Cardinal Richelieu , the "Father" of French Monarchy and he certainly helped the effort of the war against HRE ...
Colbert was a pretty good minister, too. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) his attempts at total state control of seaborne trade were a bit...impossible...? But being the father of the French navy and an able financier has to count for a lot, and it does.
 
Alexander was a great conqueror, not a great leader. Julius was never Emperor.

Correct. Julius was a leader though. As for Alexander partially because he was a great conqueror he was also a great leader but that is only a part of it ...
 
Back
Top Bottom