Best World Leader.

[Sharwood]

I'd actually be willing to go out on a limb and say Putin's the best guy going right now, although I don't agree with his policies, but he's hardly the best ever, which is the point of this thread.

And relative to time period doesn't make any sense. From 1939-1941, Adolf Hitler was the best world leader. Doesn't make him that good though.

 

[LightSpectra]

And relative to time period doesn't make any sense. From 1939-1941, Adolf Hitler was the best world leader. Doesn't make him that good though.

By "time period", that would mean the 20th century, not a select few years. Though that's a bad argument; Hitler might've been the most powerful man in the world, at that time, but that doesn't mean he was the greatest.

 

[Sharwood]

By "time period", that would mean the 20th century, not a select few years. Though that's a bad argument; Hitler might've been the most powerful man in the world, at that time, but that doesn't mean he was the greatest.

I'm aware you didn't mean time period so narrowly, I'm pointing out that the whole concept of this thread is against the concept. Whether it's two years or two thousand, time periods are meaningless in a thread about who's the best world leader ever.

 

[Ice_Tyrant]

Hmm... I'm a big fan of Ashoka the Great, a Mauryan Emperor who gave the Maryans their golden age. (Maryuan empire = India minus a bit at the tip of the peninsula near Sri Lanka) It's rare to find an ancient leader that was for peace and not your typical Monarch. Sure, he was like the typical Monarch at first, but after seeing what his war in Kalinga(sp?) did, he reformed for the better. Though perhaps what I really mean is that he might've been the best world leader Morally, since leading a country and actually following morals don't happen much, especially back then.

EDIT: Included Pakistan too, but that was always a part of India until after WWII. Afghanistan was in that Mauryan Empire too, some of it, anyway.

 

[LightSpectra]

I'm aware you didn't mean time period so narrowly, I'm pointing out that the whole concept of this thread is against the concept. Whether it's two years or two thousand, time periods are meaningless in a thread about who's the best world leader ever.

It matters. If I had to choose between Prime Minister Cyrus the Great or David Cameron right now, I would overwhelmingly choose the latter. And if I had to choose between Emperor Cyrus or Emperor Cameron, I would overwhelmingly choose the former.

 

[Sharwood]

It matters. If I had to choose between Prime Minister Cyrus the Great or David Cameron right now, I would overwhelmingly choose the latter. And if I had to choose between Emperor Cyrus or Emperor Cameron, I would overwhelmingly choose the former.

You're still missing the point. The question is about who is the best world leader in history, not who was best in specific portions of it.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

@N1k1T0$
Sharwood
Dachs
Let us stop about the Alexandros(I have been affected By Dach's correct terminology) question!!
He was f***ing terrible....
Conquering without a reason other than for the sake of conquest, thus making his country too big to rule efficiently(dude if u want to rule a conutry tht big, invent the Internet, or imitate Stalin) , was a bisexual dude who occasionally killed his men for fun, and died by losing all the land he gained to his generals, his empire was split into pieces, and he died withouth consolidating the throne;
Augustus Caesar was much better than him;he actually knew how to lead, not just kill every damn person.
@N1k1T0$, sorry if I sound rude, but claiming that Alexandros was a political genius is crazy.
The Communist Party is the Real political genius; they have 56 official minorities(plus 10+ more unofficial ones)in China and they dont have too much problems.
(Of course, saying tht means Dalai Lama and the East Tukestani rebels dont matter; but the fact is China made them so insignificant they dont matter now).

 

[philippe]

please put nuancination in your post, or lose -20 prestige.

 

[Dachs]

Yeah, well, I'm giving up on non-Latinizations. Screw you guys.

Let us stop about the Alexandros(I have been affected By Dach's correct terminology) question!!

The discussion concluded some weeks ago. Please do not attempt to resurrect it.

Conquering without a reason other than for the sake of conquest,

How bout revenge for the invasion of Greece by the Persians? You know, tit-for-tat and all that. Also I do not see why "conquest" is such a bad reason but that is just a matter of opinion.

thus making his country too big to rule efficiently(dude if u want to rule a conutry tht big, invent the Internet, or imitate Stalin) ,

Seemed to work well enough for the Achaemenids.

was a bisexual dude

...not that there's anything wrong with that.

who occasionally killed his men for fun,

Legitimate complaint. So: vicious jerk. This qualifies him for being "f***ing terrible"?

and died by losing all the land he gained to his generals,

Uh, false. Alex was pretty much large and in charge until June 323 BC(E).

his empire was split into pieces, and he died withouth consolidating the throne;

Blame it on his lack of enough time on the throne. His commonwealth of peoples idea was probably a bit modern, but he could have pulled it off. The Indo-Greeks and Greco-Bactrians, especially Demetrius I, did basically the same thing and it worked reasonably well, except for the Eucratides hiccup. (A big hiccup.)

Augustus Caesar was much better than him;he actually knew how to lead, not just kill every damn person.

Augustus knew how to delegate, and most of the stuff that he thought up, outside of propaganda and PR stunts, was actually not all that brilliant. Like attempting to legislate morals. That's stupid. The whole 'familial problems' thing didn't go over so well either. And Augustus didn't provide effectively for his own succession either; serendipity and chance played a huge role in keeping the Principate as it was during those early days. After the death of Alexander, there were several chances for the empire to be reunited, most notably by Antigonus I and later, after Corupedium, Seleucus I. Ipsus could easily have gone the other way...and blaming the issue of Ipsus on Alexander (much less the assassination of Seleucus by Ptolemy Ceraunus) is fallacious at best.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

Yeah, well, I'm giving up on non-Latinizations. Screw you guys.

The discussion concluded some weeks ago. Please do not attempt to resurrect it.

How bout revenge for the invasion of Greece by the Persians? You know, tit-for-tat and all that. Also I do not see why "conquest" is such a bad reason but that is just a matter of opinion.

Seemed to work well enough for the Achaemenids.

...not that there's anything wrong with that.

Legitimate complaint. So: vicious jerk. This qualifies him for being "f***ing terrible"?

Uh, false. Alex was pretty much large and in charge until June 323 BC(E).

Blame it on his lack of enough time on the throne. His commonwealth of peoples idea was probably a bit modern, but he could have pulled it off. The Indo-Greeks and Greco-Bactrians, especially Demetrius I, did basically the same thing and it worked reasonably well, except for the Eucratides hiccup. (A big hiccup.)

Augustus knew how to delegate, and most of the stuff that he thought up, outside of propaganda and PR stunts, was actually not all that brilliant. Like attempting to legislate morals. That's stupid. The whole 'familial problems' thing didn't go over so well either. And Augustus didn't provide effectively for his own succession either; serendipity and chance played a huge role in keeping the Principate as it was during those early days. After the death of Alexander, there were several chances for the empire to be reunited, most notably by Antigonus I and later, after Corupedium, Seleucus I. Ipsus could easily have gone the other way...and blaming the issue of Ipsus on Alexander (much less the assassination of Seleucus by Ptolemy Ceraunus) is fallacious at best.

we are talking about a leader here, not a warmongering killer who tries to prove to every one he is a god. (Of course this is exaggeration)
Augustus was better than Alexander in ruling......
When we say leader, we mean one who leads the people right? At least thats how i look at it. And Alexander didnt exactly make his Macedonian and Greek subjects that happy. I would prefer Ashoka as the best(he didnt do too good in his fist part though).But I agree on Antigonus I. Hate the Ptolemies for no reason;
But I do admit one thing: I brought the topic again for mere fun of seeing you enrichning us all with your correct terminology(I am getting obsessed with this terminology thing; maybe I ll name the East Asian leaders their native names in their language).

 

[Dachs]

we are talking about a leader here, not a warmongering killer who tries to prove to every one he is a god. (Of course this is exaggeration)
Augustus was better than Alexander in ruling......

And I mostly agree with you there, but I think that your original reasons were wrong.

But I do admit one thing: I brought the topic again for mere fun of seeing you enrichning us all with your correct terminology(I am getting obsessed with this terminology thing; maybe I ll name the East Asian leaders their native names in their language).

It's really just a preference for the non-Latin transliteration of Greek stuff as opposed to the Latinized versions that proliferate; since it seems unpopular, I'm not doing it anymore. (Mostly.)

 

[Loki130]

the secret cat overlord

 

[stee]

Caligula of Rome.

 

[Knighterror1013]

Queen Elizabeth, hands down. It was her who ultimately led England into world pwer status.

1) She knew a great mind when she seen one. Shakespear, Francis Bacon, Francis Drake, etc. all were given royal posts under her.

2) She came into power of the weakest kingdom in western Europe, and by her death it was well on its way to becoming the most powerful nation of the world.

3) She had Sir Francis Drake rob and plunder the Spainish in the Americas and back in Europe. She gave him the chance to humiliate the Spainish once more, and he did so by defeating the Armada. Also, in his trip around the world (the 2nd person to do so ever), he explored the areas of American Northwest, which lead to the claim by the American people of Manifest Destiny (controlling the North American interior from coast to coast), since when they rebelled and won thier independence from England, they got all former claims of the King of England in America, and that included New Albion (although, no one knows exactly where that is).

4. She was a shrewd politician. She knew who she had to ally with and when.

5. She had the love of her people, they even called her "Good Queen Bess".

6. She ruled by herself, as a woman, for her entire reign. That was something that did not happen often, all through out history, and people respected and feared her.

7. She severly weakened the Spainish in the long run, and freed England from any serious outside threats. This allowed the English to focus on setting up broad international trade agreements, over seas exploration and settlement, and the English being recognized as serious power on the worlds stage.

8) She was courted by foriegn Kings and Dukes, but knew in order to keep the English throne in English Hands, she did not marry, and did not produce any heirs.

Also, I would hate to see what would have happened if her sister Mary (not Queen Mary of the Scots) did not die and kept power. English history may be very different and England may have become a French, Dutch, or Spainish province, thus America could of been a very different place then it is today.

 

[LightSpectra]

Most of those criteria also apply to William Pitt the Elder, Otto van Bismarck and Louis XIV.

 

[Knighterror1013]

That is true, however, Louis XIV set a precedence for future French Kings that they felt they had to follow, but could not be maintained forever. He was also the culmination of Absolute Monarchy, its was perfected under him. But as we know, Absolute Monarchies didn't last much longer after him. Something about nations and constitutions.....

Otto van Bismarck was great. Although, he is not my favorite. His biggest contribution to me, is his creation of the Nation of Germany out of all the bickering kingdoms and fiefdoms. You gotta love his "Real Politicks", and the way he got France to attack Germany.

William Pitt I have never heard of, I will have to read up on him when I get back from NY, he sounds interesting. Where did he rule?

 

[philippe]

England, 18th century.

also, Lousi XIV is vastly overrated, his policy was one of endless wars, heavy taxations and a bancrupt state in the end.

 

[aronnax]

Queen Elizabeth, hands down. It was her who ultimately led England into world pwer status.

1) She knew a great mind when she seen one. Shakespear, Francis Bacon, Francis Drake, etc. all were given royal posts under her.

2) She came into power of the weakest kingdom in western Europe, and by her death it was well on its way to becoming the most powerful nation of the world.

Actually, it is fact that Elizabeth was more lucky than she was shrewd in politics. England was bankrupt by the Anglo-Spanish War.

3) She had Sir Francis Drake rob and plunder the Spainish in the Americas and back in Europe. She gave him the chance to humiliate the Spainish once more, and he did so by defeating the Armada. Also, in his trip around the world (the 2nd person to do so ever), he explored the areas of American Northwest, which lead to the claim by the American people of Manifest Destiny (controlling the North American interior from coast to coast), since when they rebelled and won thier independence from England, they got all former claims of the King of England in America, and that included New Albion (although, no one knows exactly where that is).

Drake took orders from himself, not the Queen. The Queen and several nobles may have invested in him, but his attacks and subsequent voyage around the world was under his own guidance, not the Queen.
You forget that after the Spanish Armada, the English used that advantage to strike back at Spain in the "Counter Armada" They had three goals which they all failed. They failed to raise a revolt in Lisbon, they failed to establish a base in Azores and in destroying the Spanish Atlantic fleet.
The Queen and England was more lucky than skilled.

4. She was a shrewd politician. She knew who she had to ally with and when.

Wrong, she was indecisive and slow in her decision making. Her support for Dutch Protestants was half-hearted and ended in disator.
5. She had the love of her people, they even called her "Good Queen Bess".

While she was a loved Queen during her reign, when she finally died, people heaved a sigh of relief as they were tired of the expensive taxes and endless war.
6. She ruled by herself, as a woman, for her entire reign. That was something that did not happen often, all through out history, and people respected and feared her.

No, she had an army of male councillors who guided her throughout her reign.
7. She severly weakened the Spainish in the long run, and freed England from any serious outside threats. This allowed the English to focus on setting up broad international trade agreements, over seas exploration and settlement, and the English being recognized as serious power on the worlds stage.

Spanish Naval dominace was only truly broken by the Dutch in 1639 in the Battle of Downs. Spain was weaken temporarily. English Settlement became something serious in the Reign of James I.

8) She was courted by foriegn Kings and Dukes, but knew in order to keep the English throne in English Hands, she did not marry, and did not produce any heirs.

I dont think not producing makes a leader good.
Also, I would hate to see what would have happened if her sister Mary (not Queen Mary of the Scots) did not die and kept power. English history may be very different and England may have become a French, Dutch, or Spainish province, thus America could of been a very different place then it is today.

The ideal of the Virgin Queen, Good Queen Bess was the result of a sudden resurgen in the romantic appeal of her reign when James became unpopular with the people.
She was a marvelous monarch no doubt, but you give her too much Credit.

 

[Masada]

Cromwell and the Commonwealth were of more lasting influence than Elizabeth.

 

[LightSpectra]

That is true, however, Louis XIV set a precedence for future French Kings that they felt they had to follow, but could not be maintained forever.

I really hate that justification. "He was a bad leader because leaders after him tried to be like him and failed". He did what made sense at the time, and had he been king longer, he likely would have done what made sense then. You can't call him a bad king because other kings were bad as well.

He was also the culmination of Absolute Monarchy, its was perfected under him. But as we know, Absolute Monarchies didn't last much longer after him. Something about nations and constitutions.....

So, again, Louis XV screwed everything up after him so bad that it collapsed under XVI. Not a justification for him, personally, being a bad leader.

William Pitt I have never heard of, I will have to read up on him when I get back from NY, he sounds interesting. Where did he rule?

He was PM of Britain during the Seven Years' War.