Best World Leader.

[@N1k1T0$]

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'.

Ok Dude. What is with that tone though ? Certainly rude. You thought the would save it ? You where WRONG. Anyway Alexandros Megas if you wish , deserves more of the Great tittle imo than others. His Great title means more.

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.

This clear things up but i don't see how making history interesting has to do with being the best but , i still find your post interesting even if somewhat off topic...

This is the same Hadrianus we're talking about that spent a significant chunk of his time fiddling around with Aristonous, right? 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.

Well the Handrian Wall must count for something ? IMO it is one of achievements which it;s positive effect may not have been calculated in the margin that it should...

Though i could be wrong.

Are you reffering to Marcus Aurelius ? He was a good emperor but i choose to hold against him his decision to select Commudus for his heir. It just does not feel right for me becaue Marcus Aurelius did bring Commudus with him in the field and he should had been aware that he was not fit for the job.

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.

Hmm I will google him. Colbert ? What kind of a French name is that ?


Anyway i enjoy the discussion...

 

[Sharwood]

Ok Dude. What is with that tone though ? Certainly rude. You thought the would save it ? You where WRONG.

Just keep calling him Dach. I did it once in a typo, and he was annoyed. So naturally, I keep doing it. Entertainment guaranteed, especially now he's changed his name.

 

[Dachs]

Ok Dude. What is with that tone though ? Certainly rude. You thought the would save it ? You where WRONG.

What, you don't like superciliousness? Truly shocking. I dunno man, maybe some stuff like failing to spell something that appears right in front of your face correctly was too much to ask. But seriously, though, yeah, I was being a bit rude, and I apologize.

Anyway Alexandros Megas if you wish , deserves more of the Great tittle imo than others. His Great title means more.

They mean the same thing. Titling someone 'Megas' in Greek means that you are referring to them as 'the Great'. One does not "mean more" than the other; they are equivalent terms.

This clear things up but i don't see how making history interesting has to do with being the best but , i still find your post interesting even if somewhat off topic...

"Best" was not defined in the OP. It could mean "doing well for the rich citizens of a given polity". It could alternatively refer to "taking actions that, while ruining the country he ruled, made others prosperous". I could refer to Mikhail Romanov as the best ruler of Muscovy - best for Sweden, that is.

Well the Handrian Wall must count for something ? IMO it is one of achievements which it;s positive effect may not have been calculated in the margin that it should...

Though i could be wrong.

The Wall was a pretty cool feat of engineering, but it wasn't all that helpful...cordon defenses require an awful lot of doodz to man, you know. I mean, it helped protect the Britannic provinces, but in the long run I don't see much of an advantage. The Romans still had to station four legions in Britannia even as late as the fifth century, so it wasn't a huge advantage in conservation of forces that was derived from the Wall's construction.

Are you reffering to Marcus Aurelius ? He was a good emperor but i choose to hold against him his decision to select Commudus for his heir. It just does not feel right for me becaue Marcus Aurelius did bring Commudus with him in the field and he should had been aware that he was not fit for the job.

I am not referring to Marcus Aurelius, but instead the Restorer of the World. But, for the reason you enumerated (abandoning the succession-by-adoption annoys me a good deal), as well as that of the concentration on the Marcomanni and not, say, the Pahlavan, I too would not rank Aurelius among the highest of the Emperors. Though Meditations was an interesting read, even if I don't agree with a lot of it.

Hmm I will google him. Colbert ? What kind of a French name is that ?

Pronounce it the same way Stephen Tyrone does. I believe Jean-Baptiste Colbert was of Scottish ancestry, at least somewhat. Loads of Scotsmen emigrated to France.

Anyway i enjoy the discussion...

I as well.

Just keep calling him Dach. I did it once in a typo, and he was annoyed. So naturally, I keep doing it. Entertainment guaranteed, especially now he's changed his name.

Meh.

 

[aronnax]

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

I think he meant in England...
By right before her rule, England had always been in the danger of being invaded by well France. Though there were I think two occasions where war could have been sparked during Victoria's Reign. Over Sudan and um...something.

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 ...

Alexander was hell of a horrible leader. He pissed off his advisors and soldiers by accepting "barbarian" cultures, marched his men to the point of revolt and shortly leave them to die in a desert. He died from drinking too much or got poisoned or something and left the empire to be fought among his generals.
He was a warmonger, better a general than a King.

 

[@N1k1T0$]

Well. I did learn a thing or two sometime ago about Alexander the Great.

Alexander was hell of a horrible leader. He pissed off his advisors and soldiers by accepting "barbarian" cultures, marched his men to the point of revolt and shortly leave them to die in a desert. He died from drinking too much or got poisoned or something and left the empire to be fought among his generals.
He was a warmonger, better a general than a King.

He was not just a warmonger. He was the greatest conqueror that set foot on this earth... And he was the king while doing so , so IMO

As for Alexander partially because he was a great conqueror he was also a great leader but that is only a part of it ...

The guy conquered a vast empire , created the hellenistic era and was a smarter political animal than you give him credit for. In fact in that regard he is great as well.

Example introducing Persian culture (and girls) and Persian (persian =/ Barbarian) customs into his kingdom giving to several Persians power and appearing as kind to those who went with him , using the appropriate Propaganda (and killing all who went against him) while mostly he gave power to Hellenes apointing them as Satrapes while also marrying them with Persians. Two birds with one stone. Got much of the old Persian establishment that remained alive with him and appointed his guys at positions in the empire.

The guy also had terriffic success at putting down revolts (which did happen) and discouraging potential revolts with his actions.

The fact that he created the whole Hellenistic age by moving Greek populations into the East , empire shaping the whole history of the world and creating great civilizations , and expanding understanding to the east also plays a role. In fact he should be credited for the stable and natural transformation of those areas into what they become. And as i said before that transition happened not only socially ,culturally but also Politically.


His empire was fought among his generals when he died . Yes. But it was his creation and it transformed in ways to accept his generals as the rulers of the empire he created because he created it.

Last i should mention the brilliant measure of all Exiles to return in mainland Greece. Who was an Exile was decided along with other measures by Ostracismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism . By vote of the public a select number of people would become exiles in democracies while the rest would rule. Or something like that.

Of course the Exiles created some Chaos to mainland Greece but most of all , where loyal to Alexander. Which was of great importance because Sparta and Athens where always hot for a revolt.


Smart man that Alexander. The only thing better he could do was to have to select an heir. But he did not expect to die at 33.

This :

Alexander was hell of a horrible leader. He pissed off his advisors and soldiers by accepting "barbarian" cultures, marched his men to the point of revolt and shortly leave them to die in a desert. He died from drinking too much or got poisoned or something and left the empire to be fought among his generals.
He was a warmonger, better a general than a King.

Is extremely unfair. In fact is more unfair than that. Calling Alexander a hell of a horrible leader is being as wrong about a subject as one can possibly be.

 

[aronnax]

Well. I did learn a thing or two sometime ago about Alexander the Great.



He was not just a warmonger. He was the greatest conqueror that set foot on this earth... And he was the king while doing so , so IMO



The guy conquered a vast empire , created the hellenistic era and was a smarter political animal than you give him credit for. In fact in that regard he is great as well.

Example introducing Persian culture (and girls) and Persian (persian =/ Barbarian) customs into his kingdom giving to several Persians power and appearing as kind to those who went with him , using the appropriate Propaganda (and killing all who went against him) while mostly he gave power to Hellenes apointing them as Satrapes while also marrying them with Persians. Two birds with one stone. Got much of the old Persian establishment that remained alive with him and appointed his guys at positions in the empire.

The guy also had terriffic success at putting down revolts (which did happen) and discouraging potential revolts with his actions.

The fact that he created the whole Hellenistic age by moving Greek populations into the East , empire shaping the whole history of the world and creating great civilizations , and expanding understanding to the east also plays a role. In fact he should be credited for the stable and natural transformation of those areas into what they become. And as i said before that transition happened not only socially ,culturally but also Politically.


His empire was fought among his generals when he died . Yes. But it was his creation and it transformed in ways to accept his generals as the rulers of the empire he created because he created it.

Last i should mention the brilliant measure of all Exiles to return in mainland Greece. Who was an Exile was decided along with other measures by Ostracismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism . By vote of the public a select number of people would become exiles in democracies while the rest would rule. Or something like that.

Of course the Exiles created some Chaos to mainland Greece but most of all , where loyal to Alexander. Which was of great importance because Sparta and Athens where always hot for a revolt.


Smart man that Alexander. The only thing better he could do was to have to select an heir. But he did not expect to die at 33.

This :

Is extremely unfair. In fact is more unfair than that. Calling Alexander a hell of a horrible leader is being as wrong about a subject as one can possibly be.

Well you might know more than I do, Im not very keen on ancient History. But from the small extracts I could gather on Alexander, he to me seemed like a pompus brat who was so full of himself that he cannot see eye to eye with anyone else, which in my view, sucks.
But Ill give you the points that Alexander might be better than I give him credit for. Still he is more of a warmongerer than a politician be.

 

[Sui Generis]

... there has never been a world leader.

 

[Sharwood]

Alexander was a warmonger. He just happened to be extremely good at it. But he didn't accomplish much of anything outside of military matters. Didn't even adequately provide for his own succession, and while he may have had high ideals, he did nothing to ensure that the administrators he put in place followed them.

 

[Dachs]

Didn't even adequately provide for his own succession,

He was working on it, you know. He'd already had an illegitimate kid, Herakles, and Alexandros IV was in the oven when he died. And there's the whole "Krateros/Kratisto" business, too. But yeah, succession inadequately provided for...by a thirty-three year old...what'd you expect?

 

[@N1k1T0$]

Alexander was a warmonger. He just happened to be extremely good at it. But he didn't accomplish much of anything outside of military matters. Didn't even adequately provide for his own succession, and while he may have had high ideals, he did nothing to ensure that the administrators he put in place followed them.

Come on ... At least read what i have written with such effort...

He did accomplish much outside of military matters. And he did accomplish more than remarkable things regarding military matters. Other than killing a few of his men when he got drunk and the whole succession thing though he was just 33 , there is nothing better one could expect from him. And i am not talking just militarilly. The guy was a master tactician in all fields even of that of Politics where killing your enemies still was a way of doing politics...

By the way has anyone seen the Berserk anime ? The Grifith character there reminds me of a certain Alexander...

 

[Sharwood]

He was working on it, you know. He'd already had an illegitimate kid, Herakles, and Alexandros IV was in the oven when he died. And there's the whole "Krateros/Kratisto" business, too. But yeah, succession inadequately provided for...by a thirty-three year old...what'd you expect?

Having an illegitimate child is not providing for the succession. If anything, it's focusing on the wrong area, namely, not your wife. Considering how Alexander's father died - if the rumours are to be believed - then you'd think he'd provide for his succession almost immediately upon assuming power.

The first job of a dictator is to ensure his own power. The second is to provide for the succession in case of his own premature death. Alexander never really did either. Having a bun in the oven doesn't count, by the age of 33 he should already have had quite a few buns already cooling on the windowsill, with Aristotle tutoring.

 

[@N1k1T0$]

He did ensure his power (actually he more than ensured it) but he did not care for a successor call it vanity if you wish. The guy archieved what he archieved he was not thinkinh the way we do.

 

[Sharwood]

Come on ... At least read what i have written with such effort...

He did accomplish much outside of military matters. And he did accomplish more than remarkable things regarding military matters. Other than killing a few of his men when he got drunk and the whole succession thing though he was just 33 , there is nothing better one could expect from him. And i am not talking just militarilly. The guy was a master tactician in all fields even of that of Politics where killing your enemies still was a way of doing politics...

By the way has anyone seen the Berserk anime ? The Grifith character there reminds me of a certain Alexander...

I read the whole post quite thoroughly. Putting down revolts, and taking measures to ensure no future ones happen, is pretty much under the "military" category. Of course his military skill was remarkable. To this day, it's seldom been matched. But outside of military matters, what did he accomplish? Virtually nothing of value.

The spread of Hellenistic culture was coincidental, much like the spread of Greek DNA throughout the Middle East, it was exactly something Alexander gave a large amount of thought to. He couldn't even keep his own army from mutinying. He wasn't even much of a general really, just a conqueror.

 

[@N1k1T0$]

The spread of Hellenistic culture was coincidental, much like the spread of Greek DNA throughout the Middle East, it was exactly something Alexander gave a large amount of thought to. He couldn't even keep his own army from mutinying. He wasn't even much of a general really, just a conqueror.

No you are wrong on all points.

It was not coincidental. He forced the population to move from Greece into new cities he established and he brought many of them with him with each travel as well . Especially after he got his empire. Which also had it's negative side as it weakened mainland Greece. Engineers , scientists you name it. Not coincidental at all.

I read the whole post quite thoroughly. Putting down revolts, and taking measures to ensure no future ones happen, is pretty much under the "military" category. Of course his military skill was remarkable. To this day, it's seldom been matched. But outside of military matters, what did he accomplish? Virtually nothing of value.

If you read the post you would have noted the several things of extreme importance he accomplished which i mentioned.

Here it is again :

Purely "political" moves he did are forcing his army to marry Persian women and to adapt Persian customs while he did also. He spared the lives of many of the old Persian bureacrusy and if i am not mistaken may have left untouched in their position as Satrapes some Persians while the rest where ruled by Greeks who at his command got closer with Persian culture. He also allowed the Persian royal class to remain , and he did the most possible to make the transition of power not only stable but to seem as less of a foreign occupation as possible. Keeping the best Persians also allowed him to control the empire more efficiently while his ruthlessness who anyone who betrayed was also Pollitcally helpful.

And then there was the genius move of by his order all exiles returning to their cities in mainland Greece. This gave him loyal ,and rich supporters in all of the cities of mainland Greece which helped him better control their actions like for example if they where planning something he would not like.

All of the above are political moves that helped to solidify his power , position and the prosperity of his empire as a mix of Greek and Eastern(Persian,Egyptian,Indian,jewish,etc).

And i am speaking from memory knowing i am not mentioning all i could have , if i remembered better.

Plus the division you do between strategist , tactician , conqueror ,war monger and Politican makes no sense to me. He was not just a war monger he was all of the above. And great at all of them but simply unmatched at tactics , winning battles.

 

[@N1k1T0$]

Dachs i need some backup on this.

 

[Sharwood]

No you are wrong on all points.

It was not coincidental. He forced the population to move from Greece into new cities he established and he brought many of them with him with each travel as well . Especially after he got his empire. Which also had it's negative side as it weakened mainland Greece. Engineers , scientists you name it. Not coincidental at all.

Have you read The Prince by Machiavelli? Colonising conquered territory is an age old method of controlling said territory. So is going to live there yourself. By moving Greeks into former Persian territory, Alexander was ensuring that he had a ready made militia on hand to take down revolts. Even if this militia had no intention of being loyal to Alexander, they wouldn't have had much choice, as the minority in these lands they would have been forced to look to him for protection, and therefore to assist him in keeping the original inhabitants in line.

If you read the post you would have noted the several things of extreme importance he accomplished which i mentioned.

Here it is again :

Purely "political" moves he did are forcing his army to marry Persian women and to adapt Persian customs while he did also. He spared the lives of many of the old Persian bureacrusy and if i am not mistaken may have left untouched in their position as Satrapes some Persians while the rest where ruled by Greeks who at his command got closer with Persian culture. He also allowed the Persian royal class to remain , and he did the most possible to make the transition of power not only stable but to seem as less of a foreign occupation as possible. Keeping the best Persians also allowed him to control the empire more efficiently while his ruthlessness who anyone who betrayed was also Pollitcally helpful.

I never said he didn't have political motives. I said his only accomplishments were military in nature. Forcing his men to marry Persian women was outright stupid, and contributed to their dislike for him - I don't know why, you'd think they'd enjoy having tang on tap no matter where they were in the empire. And sparing the lives of bureaucrats is another good military move. If he went after the bureaucrats, they'd go underground, and he'd have no chance of running such a large empire at all. By keeping experienced bureaucrats in their positions, he had an experienced administration who were now extremely loyal to him. After all, nothing inspires loyalty like unexpected mercy, combined with a healthy dose of fear.

Keeping the Persian royalty alive is another good military move, for the reasons you described. You seem to have difficulty recognising that political moves are often motivated by military necessities, and vice versa.

And then there was the genius move of by his order all exiles returning to their cities in mainland Greece. This gave him loyal ,and rich supporters in all of the cities of mainland Greece which helped him better control their actions like for example if they where planning something he would not like.

All of the above are political moves that helped to solidify his power , position and the prosperity of his empire as a mix of Greek and Eastern(Persian,Egyptian,Indian,jewish,etc).

You're proving my point for me, all of these political moves by him are designed to ensure continued power, and are bound together with military considerations.

And i am speaking from memory knowing i am not mentioning all i could have , if i remembered better.

Plus the division you do between strategist , tactician , conqueror ,war monger and Politican makes no sense to me. He was not just a war monger he was all of the above. And great at all of them but simply unmatched at tactics , winning battles.

I'm not separating politics from military matters. I'm illustrating that his political moves were of a decided military bent. I don't recall Alexander reforming the calendar, radically overhauling the judicial system, or any other purely political moves. Everything he did was done with military goals in mind; conquering new territory, ensuring order in both new and old territories, putting down revolts, etc.

 

[Dachs]

Dachs i need some backup on this.

Why? He's mostly right, by virtue of the whole 'oo i died when i was thirty-three' bit. Even Alexandros' Last Plans were military in nature: to wit, the invasion force in Kilikia under Krateros, and the expedition around Arabia by Nearchos.

 

[Sharwood]

Mostly? I am absolutely correct about everything Dach, and don't you forget it. Not just in this thread, but just generally.

 

[Dachs]

Mostly? I am absolutely correct about everything Dach, and don't you forget it. Not just in this thread, but just generally.

Meh.

However...I don't really see how the other stuff you cited as 'purely political' counts as not military. Instituting a calendar system helps a good deal with military coordination and with political unification as a vehicle for military conquest. Radically overhauling the judicial system decreases internal dissent, allowing for him to spend more time on military conquest. Exploration lets you find easy new enemies to kill and can bring in new trade partners that give you more monies with which to hire more troops to kill people with. You can assign a military motivation to most actions, and given that the amount of spending in governments before, say, the late 19th century or so was vastly tilted towards spending on three things (direct military (recruitment, upkeep, armories, fortresses, etc.), infrastructure, public works...all of which have military applications or possible military motivations)...well, why not label basically every single ruler from the beginning of time concerned with military motives? Not that this has impact on Alexandros' classification as almost wholly a conqueror, but the dichotomy is a bit unfair, methinks.

 

[Masada]

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.

Understatement of the year... this is the same Colbert who managed to create a system unmatched for centralization until the Soviet Union? He just never managed to get rid of tariffs on internal trade, raised tariffs on foreign goods at the expense of the poor and managed to stifle competition, routinely failed at opening up new markets [French East India Corporation], burdened his country with an impossible regulatory system, stuffed up the taxation base, decided that an unwieldy and hated taxation system which was notoriously inefficient was a good idea, and managed only to plaster a thin veneer over the chaos of French finances. All of those things were nearly reversed by Turgot... now he is a Minister he would have likely saved the French Monarchy had he been allowed to finish his work.