Greatest Ancient Ruler?
- Thread starter Pangur Bán
- Start date
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Earendil - so? If the empire wasn't able to survive his death (regardless of the why), doesn't that sort of mean he failed to plan ahead, which is sort of a weakness when it comes to being called "great ruler"?
It's impossible to plan ahead for a major disaster the like of an earthquake or a plague. It is, however, very possible to make plans ahead of time for your death. A ruler who fails to do so does not deserve the title of "great ruler".
Plus, what has Alexander done that Qin Shi Huangdi did not achieve? Carve out a sizeable empire? Yes, they both did that (China might have been smaller, but OTOH most of Alexander's empire was the already-existing Persian empire, which Alexander took by force the throne to - and without having to fight all that much for it) . Attempt to bring some unity to the empire? They both did that - Qin Shi Huangdi by unifying their measures and monetary system, Alexander through attempted cultural integration. Great building project? Yes, they both did that. Alexander built any number of cities to his own glory (Alexandria this and Alexandria that), and Shi Huangdi had a wall built - the first incarnation of the famous "Wonder of the World #8" - The Great Wall of China.
So, in the end, what can we compare them over? How much land each conquered? Not a very fair comparison system, that - when you get right down to it, what did Alexander accomplish with the Persian Empire that, say, William the Conqueror didn't accomplish with England - or the later Qing dynasty in China.
QSH built himself an empire. Alexander stole himself one. QSH's empire lasted some while, and in fact its latest incarnation still exists today as a world power. Alexander's didn't, and Macedonia today is pretty much an European backwater. I don't know about you, but I know which of these two I would consider the greater ruler.
It's impossible to plan ahead for a major disaster the like of an earthquake or a plague. It is, however, very possible to make plans ahead of time for your death. A ruler who fails to do so does not deserve the title of "great ruler".
Plus, what has Alexander done that Qin Shi Huangdi did not achieve? Carve out a sizeable empire? Yes, they both did that (China might have been smaller, but OTOH most of Alexander's empire was the already-existing Persian empire, which Alexander took by force the throne to - and without having to fight all that much for it) . Attempt to bring some unity to the empire? They both did that - Qin Shi Huangdi by unifying their measures and monetary system, Alexander through attempted cultural integration. Great building project? Yes, they both did that. Alexander built any number of cities to his own glory (Alexandria this and Alexandria that), and Shi Huangdi had a wall built - the first incarnation of the famous "Wonder of the World #8" - The Great Wall of China.
So, in the end, what can we compare them over? How much land each conquered? Not a very fair comparison system, that - when you get right down to it, what did Alexander accomplish with the Persian Empire that, say, William the Conqueror didn't accomplish with England - or the later Qing dynasty in China.
QSH built himself an empire. Alexander stole himself one. QSH's empire lasted some while, and in fact its latest incarnation still exists today as a world power. Alexander's didn't, and Macedonia today is pretty much an European backwater. I don't know about you, but I know which of these two I would consider the greater ruler.
earendil 1
The Halfelven
I think if you pick the ruler who had the largest impact on history, it has to be Alexander. IT matters not how long the empire existed, but its impact on the world. You seem to have forgotten that the Great Library and the Great Lighthouse were built in Alexandria, which was founded by Alexander. Alexander did not simply conquer Persia and then the whole of the middle east was his- the Persian empire was already in decline, and Egypt and some other vassal states were breaking away. He also built a dike to the ancient island city of Tyre, a dike that exists to this day. He also invented a new type of phalanx warfare, a type that the Romans would later adopt and change. He was only 33. If he was older, you would probably agree with me, because he would have had longer to rule and refine his empire with Greek culture, and he also would have chosen an heir. And while Alexandria and its many archtectual wonders actually had an impact on the world at the time (culture-wise), the Great Wall was not really an adequate defense against anything, and it was really never useful. And, as said before, he brought Greek culture to the East, and he guaranteed the spread of Hellenic culture into future Europe by making it so widespread.
[rant]This is why I hate this type of 'who's the greatest' discussions. 
All rulers had their impact on history. Who'd the greatest impact? It's all open to personal intepretation - and personal bias.
Let's just consider each ruler great and leave it at that.
[/rant]
All rulers had their impact on history. Who'd the greatest impact? It's all open to personal intepretation - and personal bias.
Let's just consider each ruler great and leave it at that.
[/rant]
Has to?
Only to the Western world.
And China still stands, today.
That, in and of itself, is a major impact. The Qin Great Wall was adequate for its purposes. Like customs. And keeping the Chinese in. One of the problems for the Qin imperial govt was that the Chinese kept leaving the empire, and joined the nomads. And bringing their tech knowhow with them.
For defense, the Qin armies invaded the steppes.
You have to realise - there're a few Great Walls in Chinese history. You're probably thinking of the Ming Great Wall - which was rightly a white elephant; the result of a lack of military ideas.
Qin Shihuang didn't plan on his own death either. In fact, he planned on being immortal.
It was during one of his tours out of the capital to pursue the elusive elixir of immortality that he died.
Li Su, the premier, and the leading eunuch (forgot name) then conspired to get the easier second prince to the throne; whilst ordering the crown prince and General Meng Tian to commit suicide, via a false imperial edict. The crown prince had been sent to the northern border for speaking out against the harsh rule of the emperor. General Meng Tian held the command of the Great Wall troops - 400000 of them.
Had the excellent elder prince ascended the throne; the Qin might have grown to be a great dynasty.
The Qin empire was carved out by the generals and armies of Qin, and was the result of a historical inevitability. Due to the formidable economic powerhouse-combo of the Wei valley - the Qin heartland, and Shu (modern Sichuan) - one of the earlier Qin conquests.
The King of Qin never took the field. Ever.
We must realise that Qin Shi Huang and the Qin imperial administration was trying to create a police state here, rather than out of any desire to create a nation to last ten thousand years...
Amenhotep IV
Great Pharaoh
Pharaoh Akhenaton (Amenhotep IV) definitely.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
That is highly unfair to Diocletian.
Mongoloid Cow
Great Khan
Godwynn, is legalising Christianity the only prerequisite of being a great ruler?
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Which still doesn't make one a great ruler...
And "legalizing one of the world's greatest religion" is a serious misnomer...he legalized a minor religion (at the time). That religion eventually grew into something much bigger, but that took a long time.
And "legalizing one of the world's greatest religion" is a serious misnomer...he legalized a minor religion (at the time). That religion eventually grew into something much bigger, but that took a long time.
Mongoloid Cow
Great Khan
Gotcha
Constantine IMO was capable of bringing about some peace regardless of whether he legalised it. I guess it was a lot easier though.
Constantine IMO was capable of bringing about some peace regardless of whether he legalised it. I guess it was a lot easier though.
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
Although, there is a theory that the rise of Christianity was linked to the fall of the Roman empire.
In that sense, Constantine may have made a bad move...although he himself was Christian, and it would be awkward for the emperor to practice an illegal religion.
In that sense, Constantine may have made a bad move...although he himself was Christian, and it would be awkward for the emperor to practice an illegal religion.
if the question was greatest RULER than how much you conquerored isn't the only thing to base it on. caesar plunged his country into cival war, alexander conquerored 1/2 the world than lost it, stipped his homeland of men and materials and left it a second class power, constantine spent most of his reign in cival war,ect... maybe this guys would do better in the " greatest generals or conquerors thread"
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Diocletian split the Empire for a good reason, and Constantine was a fool for ignoring this. Actually, Dio's achievement was in reuniting it after a fifty year period of civil war, and his wisdom in creating the tetrarchic system to preserve its new unity.
Godwynn
March to the Sea
- Joined
- May 17, 2003
- Messages
- 20,523
So he re-united the empire, then split it again, doesn't make much sense to me. 1 empire, with 1 ruler, and 1 army is much better than 2 empires and 4 rulers. Then look what happened, he idea of preserving its unity didn't last did it? No, it was plunged into another battle for power and civil war and Constantine won...
So Diocletian Was The Fool!
Similar threads
