Most powerful person ever

[Marla_Singer]

Adam (assuming he indeed existed). When the world has only ONE person you by default own the world and must be the most powerful one.

Except very few doubt Adam has never existed, even in the Vatican City. As such, why not saying Superman or James Bond ?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Hitler in 1943 could be a candidate.

Why 1943?
Ten Char

 

[Nobody]

JFK during the cuban missle crisis, he could have destroyed the entire world. The power of a god, No one could have more, though krushave (i cant spell) probably could have as well

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Hitler in 1943 could be a candidate.

1943 Germany was already broken; to borrow Hitler's own words, the Allies had only to "kick in the door, and the whole rotting structure would come tumbling down." It had lost its primary ally in Europe:Italy, capitulating to the Allies. It's horrible losses at Kursk, Stalingrad, and the siege of Leningrad put the Germans on the run in the East. The Allies are bombing the Reich day and night, and the Wehrmacht is feeling the burn from the bombing of their Romanian oil supplies. Food rationing is in place, discontent in the occupied territories is on the rise; in 1943, Germany's days are numbered. If you wanted a day when Hitler was on top of the world, then you're looking for Germany on 25 June, 1940.

 

[scy12]

Gaius Augustus . Also included are emperors of Byzantium at it's peak.

 

[History_Buff]

Well, in terms of pure wattage, I'd go with whoever was bombadier on the flight that dropped the Tsar Bomba. That thing was a beast.

Failing him, I'd probably go with either a President of the US, or Premier of the USSR. Those guys had enough Nuclear Weaponry behind them to effectively destroy 90% of the Earth's surface. They quite possibly could have wiped out all human life on the planet. That's power, pure and simple.

 

[Jerrymander]

Absolutely not true.
It can be a good form of goverment, it's just very extreme for most people.

Notice my use of the word "practiced". Read carefully.

Communism is not an undesirable form of government, but totalitarianism is, which is what Stalin had.

Totalitarian societies have always been weak in history. Tell me, which modern nation has had the longest form of unaltered, basic government?


EDIT: Oh, and Mao could have been the most powerful person. But China instantly got screwed up after his death, only saved by Deng Xiaoping's additions of a hybrid Capi-Comu system. Communism cannot work, especially in the modern society. I don't know why people seem to think that totalitarian societies, on the national level, are strong or "good".

 

[scy12]

I would say China was saved by his death. Not that eventually only by the shear number of people they have they wouldn't catch up sometime in a longer future.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

i think queen victoria is up there with stalin, if you think about it she ruled the largest empire by land size and had strong control over several other large countries like the US.

How "strong control" over US did British Empire actually have during the 19th century?

 

[Julian Delphiki]

Definitely Mao. I think China has the most soldiers in the arm force in the world.

Remember that Mao has been dead over thirty years.

Chinese army was strong on manpower (surprise!) but lacking otherwise -- for example, they did not have international power projection capability and their military industry did produce really bad quality equipment (jets & helicopters that were too dangerous to fly etc.), they lacked delivery means for their (build with soviet help) nukes and so on.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

1.) Nukes only mean power if you can use them, and you can only use nukes when there's no one around who could retaliate.

2.) Any democratic leader is out because he can never just do as he pleases
and is dependant on public opinion and elections.

3.) Stalin was very powerful, but his country had to compete with the USA.

The most powerful man would have been a totalitarian leader of a superpower
with no enemies who are strong enough to be a threat.
Roman leaders were also partly dependant on the senate and there was always Parthia and later Persia in the east.

I admit that I don't know much about Chinese history, but from what I "believe to know" a Chinese Emperor could have been the most powerful man in history. I think Qin Shihuangdi would be a good candidate.

 

[civvver]

Only when the "known world" include all Asia.

Then Ghengis Kahn is the most powerful without a doubt. They ruled all of Asia, Middle East, some of Europe.

I loosely say known world just because no one empire has ever covered every person and land area in the entire world. Like the Americas were basically isolated until the 1400s, although there were certainly powerful, advanced civilizations there.

I really don't think you can make a case for any modern leader. Power is too well split. Any country post 1900 has to complete with the usa and no single person wields enough power in the usa. The old empires like the mongols and rome were practically singular superpowers with one leader calling all the shots.

 

[History_Buff]

Tell me, which modern nation has had the longest form of unaltered, basic government?

England?

1.) Nukes only mean power if you can use them, and you can only use nukes when there's no one around who could retaliate.

False. You can use Nukes whenever you want to, given that you have launch authority. You just won't be around to brag about it afterwards.

 

[ParkCungHee]

England?

I wouldn't say that. The Reform acts definately changed the shape of English Government.

How "strong control" over US did British Empire actually have during the 19th century?

Er...It didn't have any. We had much closer ties to other countries in the 19th century. Unless they mean the Confederacy.

 

[Plotinus]

Yeah, the Queen technically has the right of veto over laws made by Parliament but there is no way she would use it.

We still have an unelected House of Lords which can force bills back to the Commons for review if they don't like it. Hereditary Lords have been got rid of in the last few years.

Queen Victoria however managed to make lesbianism not illegal when she refused to believe that women would get up to that sort of thing. I don't know if she changed any other laws though.

The last British monarch to affect legislation in any way was Anne. Victoria had effectively no political power at all, so it is really ridiculous to cite her as the most powerful leader in history. For example, after one election which was won by the Liberals, Victoria said she didn't want to appoint Gladstone as prime minister because she didn't like him. She wanted to have Disraeli instead, who had just lost. Her advisers told her in no uncertain terms that this was not an option. Then as now, the prime minister ran the country, and although technically the monarch appoints the prime minister, chooses to delegate her powers to him, and invites him to form a government, she has no real choice over the matter. But, of course, the prime minister did not really rule the empire, because each bit was ruled by local viceroys, commissioners, and other officials, just as today places such as Australia and New Zealand have their own prime ministers. That's why, although the British empire was immense, you can't really identify a single individual with all that power.

The current queen rules not only Britain but Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and a few other places too, but I don't think anyone would claim that makes her one of the most powerful people in the world! Although I do remember, some years ago, meeting an American student in Britain who believed that the Queen really rules Britain. She hadn't heard of Tony Blair and said "What's that?" when I said he was the prime minister. She seemed to think Elizabeth II reigned in much the same way as Louis XIV.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The current queen rules not only Britain but Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and a few other places too, but I don't think anyone would claim that makes her one of the most powerful people in the world! Although I do remember, some years ago, meeting an American student in Britain who believed that the Queen really rules Britain. She hadn't heard of Tony Blair and said "What's that?" when I said he was the prime minister. She seemed to think Elizabeth II reigned in much the same way as Louis XIV.

Please tell me she was in grade school.
Actually, I'm not that surprised, I remember back in high school having to (unsuccessfully) try to convince a whole group of my friends to believe that Africa is in fact, not one large country.

 

[Orthodox Warior]

Most powerful person?
Definitely Rowan Atkinson

Nobody: Fix your signature, Clinton was president of US in 1999. War was over by signing Kumanovo treaty 10. June 1999. So hardly Bush or Clinton would say something like that in Kosovo in April.

 

[aelf]

Please tell me she was in grade school.
Actually, I'm not that surprised, I remember back in high school having to (unsuccessfully) try to convince a whole group of my friends to believe that Africa is in fact, not one large country.

I know how you feel. Once, I tried to convince someone that a T-rex wasn't as tall as the sky. But we were 6.

 

[Plotinus]

Please tell me she was in grade school.

I don't know what grade school is, but she was an undergraduate aged about 19 and was in Oxford on a study abroad programme (in Oxford, definitely not at Oxford!). I think she'd been there for about a week at that stage. I must say that all the other American students were deeply embarrassed by all this, and quite right too.

 

[Maimonides]

As for the OP, I think I agree with those who said leaders of the U.S., U.S.S.R. & Russia with their fingers on the button of nuclear armageddon have definitely been the most powerful.

How "strong control" over US did British Empire actually have during the 19th century?

Er...It didn't have any. We had much closer ties to other countries in the 19th century. Unless they mean the Confederacy.

I must disagree with PakCungHee's answer. Britain had great power over the U.S. in the early 19th century. They burned Washington, D.C. & our ships were at their mercy during the War of 1812. However, that changed by the time of the U.S.-Mexican War when our military was sufficient to defend our shores & conquer abroad.

I don't know what grade school is, but she was an undergraduate aged about 19 and was in Oxford on a study abroad programme (in Oxford, definitely not at Oxford!).

"Grade school" is the American term for grammar school-grades K-5 or 6.