Civ-specific ranks collection thread

[ozqar]

Hey @Steb - fantastic work! Lots of research went into this, I'm sure. As you requested it, please consider this feedback, from a Mexican, about Mexico's leaders -
1 - Move Santa Anna to the 16th position - the "lost half the country" feat is more relevant and famous than Salinas fraud or the economic crisis towards the end of his period. I'd put Salinas anywhere in positions 13-15 actually.
2 - Porfirio Díaz, should be way higher in the list - perhaps position 4 above Hidalgo. Hidalgo started the independence war, but his lead didn't last long (he "sparked" the war). Díaz, on the other hand, achieved a lot of (positive) changes in his 30-period rule.
3 - I'd personally move Iturbide much higher on the list (he concluded the independence war), perhaps swapping places with Guadalupe Victoria. Victoria was the first president, but that's his only well-known achievement.
4 - Remove Huerta, Díaz Ordaz and Echeverría altogether - there are few achievements to glorify there and their crimes and violence outweigh any positives to consider them for a list of "how well did you lead the country".
5 - Consider Morelos anywhere in the list, he was very influential in the independence war. If the intention is to include women, then research Josefa Ortiz de Dominguez or Leona Vicario, they had relatively small roles to play in the independence war, but they are one of the most recognized female leaders (Ortiz de Dominguez is more famous). Carmen Serdán can be considered from the revolution times.
7 - If you need additional ideas, perhaps Venustiano Carranza or Alvaro Obregón could be good options.

 

[Steb]

Hey @Steb - fantastic work! Lots of research went into this, I'm sure. As you requested it, please consider this feedback, from a Mexican, about Mexico's leaders -
1 - Move Santa Anna to the 16th position - the "lost half the country" feat is more relevant and famous than Salinas fraud or the economic crisis towards the end of his period. I'd put Salinas anywhere in positions 13-15 actually.
2 - Porfirio Díaz, should be way higher in the list - perhaps position 4 above Hidalgo. Hidalgo started the independence war, but his lead didn't last long (he "sparked" the war). Díaz, on the other hand, achieved a lot of (positive) changes in his 30-period rule.
3 - I'd personally move Iturbide much higher on the list (he concluded the independence war), perhaps swapping places with Guadalupe Victoria. Victoria was the first president, but that's his only well-known achievement.
4 - Remove Huerta, Díaz Ordaz and Echeverría altogether - there are few achievements to glorify there and their crimes and violence outweigh any positives to consider them for a list of "how well did you lead the country".
5 - Consider Morelos anywhere in the list, he was very influential in the independence war. If the intention is to include women, then research Josefa Ortiz de Dominguez or Leona Vicario, they had relatively small roles to play in the independence war, but they are one of the most recognized female leaders (Ortiz de Dominguez is more famous). Carmen Serdán can be considered from the revolution times.
7 - If you need additional ideas, perhaps Venustiano Carranza or Alvaro Obregón could be good options.

Thanks! If you want to rearrange the full list that might be the best; otherwise I'll incorporate your feedback.

Are you sure about Santa Anna and Díaz? My understanding is that both are highly polarizing, which is why they ended up in the "average" tier. Placing them at the bottom or near the top seems like only agreeing with one side of the story. My understanding of Iturbide is also that he was a bit of an opportunist, though I don't really remember where I read that, and also he reigned for such a short time that he can't really be considered a great leader.

For the bottom tier, it's fine to put leaders who are infamous for bad deeds, but I also didn't actually touch that part of the list; some anonymous contributor made it.

I don't really think any of those two female revolutionaries really fit. While I did try to have at least one female leader in most list, it's fine if a few like Mexico don't have any.

 

[Steb]

The other day I wrote a blog post about working on these rankings, and someone replied with this really cool website that uses Wikipedia to produce rankings of famous/historical people based on a "Historical Popularity Index": Pantheon.

 

[Leoreth]

How is Jimmy Carter the second highest ranked American president on this list?

 

[Pawlak]

How is Jimmy Carter the second highest ranked American president on this list?

"HPI is currently made of five components: the “age” of a biography’s character (e.g. Jesus is more than 2,000 years old), number of Wikipedia language editions in which the biography has a presence (L), the concentration of the pageviews received by a biography across languages (L*), the stability of pageviews over time (CV), and the number of non-English pageviews received by that biography. We find that combining these metrics provides a more sensible ranking than using these metrics alone."

My intuition is that it's cos he is oldest living ex-president, and been one since 2004 (he is older then papa Bush, right?) but I agree it is weird. Also counterintuitively it could be cos he is such relatively unknown character outside of USA (who's that dude - let's check his wikipedia page). But maybe I don't get something about how they measure it.

 

[Steb]

Update: I went ahead and actually made a list for the Toltecs. It is not an amazing list — most names in the middle are rulers who are included in king lists but about whom nothing is known and may not have existed — but I think it's better to have them separate from the Aztec list (which I also updated). There are at least a few historically attested Teotihuacanos and Mixtecs in the list.

 

[brett0007]

In regards to the Byzantine list I dont think its fair to pin all the achivments of the reign of Justinian on either Justinian or Theodora alone. As arguably histories greatest power couple I think the top spot should be "Justinian and Theodora"

 

[Steb]

In regards to the Byzantine list I dont think its fair to pin all the achivments of the reign of Justinian on either Justinian or Theodora alone. As arguably histories greatest power couple I think the top spot should be "Justinian and Theodora"

Interesting idea, I have avoided collective names so far, but it could work here. On the other hand giving them two separate positions in the list (both high) is probably more consistent

 

[Pistis Sophia]

1.Pyotr the Great
2.Yekaterina the Great
3.Ivan III
4.Rurik
5.Yaroslav' the Wise
6.Mikhail Krushchev
7.Ivan the Terrible
8.Iosif Stalin
9.Aleksandr I
10.Mikhail Gorbachev
11.Nicholas I
12.Vladimir Lenin
13.Boris Yeltsin
14.Leonid Brezhnev
15.Nicholas II
16.Vladimir Zhirinovsky

A rather dubious list due to the odiousness of some characters.

Yeltsin and Gorbachev enjoy great dislike at home, and the former just deserves the last place as an image of an absurd and incompetent ruler.
Gorbachev, as a failed ruler, would do well to settle somewhere at the bottom of the list.
A similar fate should await Khrushchev, known more as a character in jokes.
Among the prominent rulers there are no Alexander III and Tsar Alexis. It would be wise to remove the legendary Rurik and the inappropriate Zhirinovsky from the list.

 

[Steb]

A rather dubious list due to the odiousness of some characters.

Yeltsin and Gorbachev enjoy great dislike at home, and the former just deserves the last place as an image of an absurd and incompetent ruler.
Gorbachev, as a failed ruler, would do well to settle somewhere at the bottom of the list.
A similar fate should await Khrushchev, known more as a character in jokes.
Among the prominent rulers there are no Alexander III and Tsar Alexis. It would be wise to remove the legendary Rurik and the inappropriate Zhirinovsky from the list.

You're not looking at the most up-to-date suggestion. From the spreadsheet, the Russia list is currently:

Peter the Great
Joseph Stalin
Catherine the Great
Ivan III the Great
Vladimir Lenin
Elizabeth Petrovna
Michael I
Alexander II
Nikita Khrushchev
Alexander I
Ivan the Terrible
Mikhail Gorbachev
Anna Ioannovna
Leonid Brezhnev
Nicholas II
Boris Yeltsin

You can view the justifications in the spreadsheet too.

 

[Pistis Sophia]

You're not looking at the most up-to-date suggestion. From the spreadsheet, the Russia list is currently:

Peter the Great
Joseph Stalin
Catherine the Great
Ivan III the Great
Vladimir Lenin
Elizabeth Petrovna
Michael I
Alexander II
Nikita Khrushchev
Alexander I
Ivan the Terrible
Mikhail Gorbachev
Anna Ioannovna
Leonid Brezhnev
Nicholas II
Boris Yeltsin

You can view the justifications in the spreadsheet too.

This list is much better.
The main issue is mostly about aesthetics - Germanized Regnal names in combination with Russian patronymics look out of place. Stylistically, it would be much better to leave only the names.

From other things, it looks somewhat strange that Brezhnev is at a position below Gorbachev. Despite the fact that Gorby are loved in some countries, its rule is associated with the collapse of the country. In the bottom of the list, we have Nicholas II placed there due to the fact that in his rule the country also ceased to exist. It looks somewhat inconsistent. Perhaps it makes sense to change the places of Brezhnev and Gorbachev?

Of the other oddities, the polar location of Ivan the Terrible and Stalin. Quite similar politicians, in principle, have the same assessment even in justifications. But they are in different parts of the list. Why?

From other things, possibly for a variety of political regimes, does it make sense to replace Nicholas the Second with Kerensky? So, two leaders of democratic Russia will appear on the list. Why Kerensky will be located at the bottom of the list is probably obvious.

 

[Steb]

The main issue is mostly about aesthetics - Germanized Regnal names in combination with Russian patronymics look out of place. Stylistically, it would be much better to leave only the names.

Do you refer to Elizabeth Petrovna and Anna Ioannovna? I see your point, maybe you're right that we should remove the patronymics. I think I chose those names because just "Elizabeth" felt too short and unclear who we're referring to, while "Elizabeth of Russia" seems wrong because all the leaders in the list are "of Russia". I don't know of any better names for the teo empresses that make sense in English. Maybe "Empress Elizabeth" and "Empress Anna"?

From other things, it looks somewhat strange that Brezhnev is at a position below Gorbachev. Despite the fact that Gorby are loved in some countries, its rule is associated with the collapse of the country. In the bottom of the list, we have Nicholas II placed there due to the fact that in his rule the country also ceased to exist. It looks somewhat inconsistent. Perhaps it makes sense to change the places of Brezhnev and Gorbachev?

Of the other oddities, the polar location of Ivan the Terrible and Stalin. Quite similar politicians, in principle, have the same assessment even in justifications. But they are in different parts of the list. Why?

Consistency isn't the top priority, but it's true that sometimes we have strange situations with leaders who aren't universally considered either good or bad. Ivan the Terrible ended up in the middle range, which is common for controversial leaders, but could arguably be higher. Stalin ended up near the top, because he's a leaderhead, is hugely famous, and had huge impact, but could arguably be lower.

Gorbachev is associated with decline in Russia but still feels like a somewhat respected figure, while Brezhnev seems to be a more topic of ridicule? But I'm not sure, open to moving them around. How about this for the bottom half:

Nikita Khrushchev
Ivan the Terrible
Alexander I
Anna Ioannovna
Mikhail Gorbachev
Leonid Brezhnev
Nicholas II
Boris Yeltsin

From other things, possibly for a variety of political regimes, does it make sense to replace Nicholas the Second with Kerensky? So, two leaders of democratic Russia will appear on the list. Why Kerensky will be located at the bottom of the list is probably obvious.

Kerensky is definitely a very valid suggestion, but he's less known than Nicholas II or any of the other leaders near the bottom, so not worth adding IMO.

 

[Dracosolon]

If you get Gorbachev rank your victory screen is an ad for Pizza Hut.

 

[Pistis Sophia]

Do you refer to Elizabeth Petrovna and Anna Ioannovna? I see your point, maybe you're right that we should remove the patronymics. I think I chose those names because just "Elizabeth" felt too short and unclear who we're referring to, while "Elizabeth of Russia" seems wrong because all the leaders in the list are "of Russia". I don't know of any better names for the teo empresses that make sense in English. Maybe "Empress Elizabeth" and "Empress Anna"?

It seems to me that a person will understand from the context who is meant if you simply specify the Regnal Name. After all, the list already includes the rather obscure Tsar Michael. He is presented without a patronymic or title, and this does not create any confusion. So just leave them like Anne (or Anna) and Elizabeth.
In the case of Michael, I am somewhat confused by the fact that he is listed under the number in the list, despite the fact that he is the only monarch bearing this name, and accordingly does not have a number. At the same time, it is numbered in the English Wikipedia, which raises even more questions.

Nikita Khrushchev
Ivan the Terrible
Alexander I
Anna Ioannovna
Mikhail Gorbachev
Leonid Brezhnev
Nicholas II
Boris Yeltsin

Much better

Kerensky is definitely a very valid suggestion, but he's less known than Nicholas II or any of the other leaders near the bottom, so not worth adding IMO.

Among other persons with a clearly negative connotation, I can suggest Pseudo-Demetrius at the bottom of the list. He is definitely a bad ruler and I don't think anyone likes him.

 

[Steb]

It seems to me that a person will understand from the context who is meant if you simply specify the Regnal Name. After all, the list already includes the rather obscure Tsar Michael. He is presented without a patronymic or title, and this does not create any confusion. So just leave them like Anne (or Anna) and Elizabeth.
In the case of Michael, I am somewhat confused by the fact that he is listed under the number in the list, despite the fact that he is the only monarch bearing this name, and accordingly does not have a number. At the same time, it is numbered in the English Wikipedia, which raises even more questions.

Much better

Among other persons with a clearly negative connotation, I can suggest Pseudo-Demetrius at the bottom of the list. He is definitely a bad ruler and I don't think anyone likes him.

Okay I'm convinced, it'll be just Michael, Anna and Elizabeth.

Among other persons with a clearly negative connotation, I can suggest Pseudo-Demetrius at the bottom of the list. He is definitely a bad ruler and I don't think anyone likes him.

Replacing who?

 

[Pistis Sophia]

Replacing who?

at your discretion?
i would do like this:

Peter the Great
Joseph Stalin
Catherine the Great
Ivan III the Great
Vladimir Lenin
Elizabeth
Michael
Alexander II
Nikita Khrushchev
Ivan the Terrible
Alexander I
Anna
Mikhail Gorbachev
Leonid Brezhnev
Nicholas II
+++False Dmitry I
Boris Yeltsin

It make sense to remove some Soviet leader, because there are already too many of them on the list (5!).
my choice fell on Lenin because he is the most controversial for his discussion as a ruler. For most of his reign, he was incapacitated due to illness.

 

[1SDANi]

at your discretion?
i would do like this:

It make sense to remove some Soviet leader, because there are already too many of them on the list (5!).
my choice fell on Lenin because he is the most controversial for his discussion as a ruler. For most of his reign, he was incapacitated due to illness.

More controversial than Stalin?

 

[Dracosolon]

I think it's fine if leaders who are actually in the game are bumped to the top regardless of their legacy (barring edge cases like Hitler, who shouldn't be on the list at all).

It make sense to remove some Soviet leader, because there are already too many of them on the list (5!).
my choice fell on Lenin because he is the most controversial for his discussion as a ruler. For most of his reign, he was incapacitated due to illness.

Lenin seems definitely like the second most important Soviet leader on this list. He didn't have the opportunity to rule for long but we already have the precedent of Gandhi for people more known for leading movements than governments.

 

[Pistis Sophia]

More controversial than Stalin?

The question is how much he is able to rule.
Lenin ruled little. And the period in which he ruled fell on a terrible civil war.

 

[MISER SVM]

No Yuan Shikai as the bottom place for China?