Leaders best suited to their times

jackelgull

An aberration of nature
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
3,253
Location
Within the realm of impossibility
I always feel that any discussion of the best/worst leaders in history is unproductive, because this ignores that every leader has different political climates and crises to face. The political situation in revolutionary America was quite different from lets say revolutionary France. There is no one standard of leadership that can be applied to all times. What worked in ancient Persia isn't necessarily going to work in Iran today. Too much changes.

So instead I am asking which leaders were best able to navigate the political climates of their time due to circumstances they could and couldn't control. Leaders who had so many points in their favor at the time that there was no better person suited for the position.

I am going to throw in Abu Bakr, the first Caliph for this role. There was no one else who could have saved the Muslim umma at the time. He had the close connection to the prophet to provide him with legitimacy. He was well known and well respected among the Arabs. His strict position on the false prophets springing up after Muhammed's death and insistence on adherence to sticking to Islamic principle saved the fledgling Muslim state from fracturing and becoming impotent after the death of its prophet.

He navigated his political climate admirably and I believe that there was no one else who could have taken up this role at the time. Anyone else want to nominate some one else?
 
Basil II?

Maniakes might have worked as well, if he didn't feel so sure he would run over everyone and thus got himself killed by some lame and already retreating army.

The Komnenoi seem to have been great as well, and much less gory. Maybe John II being the overall best (iirc some claim he was something like Tyrion, and even had his own Bronn as a hypaspist ;) ). Haven't read much on them by now, though...
 
I've always thought Juan Carlos I was well-suited for his times. So was George Washington.
 
If you're really specific and limited about what time we're talking about then Churchill comes to mind, especially for the period immediately after taking over the PM role for the first time. Its difficult to see how the man he replaced (Chamberlain), and his main rival for the role (Halifax) could have guided Britain out of the mess it was in given how both were compromised by their role in appeasement and lack of support from other parties

Which isn't to say that Churchill did a particularly amazing or perfect job during the war because he plainly didn't, but his consistent and early opposition to the rise of the Nazis, coupled with his speeches, attitude and demeanour during those dark hours of 1940-41 was pretty much what the country needed. It inspired the people to continue to stand up to Hitler despite the seemingly impossible odds.

It also contrasts sharply with Hitler's attitude when the Nazi empire started to crumble around him. Churchill toured the bombed cities and towns and was a vocal and visible leader during the Blitz and period of invasion threats. Hitler all but vanished from the public scene, hardly ever seeing the destruction wrought on German cities and for some time before his death rarely venturing outside of Berlin and the bunker complex he'd decamped to.
 
Churchill was also an enthusiastic philofascist for the twenty years prior to the war, so it's safe to say that it took a very specific coincidence of circumstances for him to become a "great leader".
 
Including the rise of another "great" leader to power declaring war upon an ally of Britain?
 
I'm not so convinced that he was a great leader, but then again since that's exactly what the OP is seeking to avoid discussions of, I didn't see the need to debate or raise that. For the record though I share no illusions that he was not a complex and often contradictory personality with some pretty repellant or dubious views at times that balance out, indeed could be argued outweigh his more positive points

He was clearly the best leader available at that time of crisis. It is difficult to see any of the other candidates doing better and arguably would have done much worse given their attitudes and policies up to that point. Or perhaps there's someone I'm not aware of, in which case by all means lets have a discussion about that.
 
I agree, Churchill is the obvious answer to the OP, given that he (a) did a good job in those very specific circumstances and (b) was dreadful in any other circumstances, both hypothetical and actual.
 
I think that latter part may be somewhat of an exaggeration. Perhaps no more than his reputation tends to get exaggerated in his favour by some, but that's no reason to over compensate for that trend. Nor do I think his record supports the suggestion that his performance in every other role or circumstance was so appalling.

His personal views on the other hand are another matter.
 
Top Bottom