weimar_republic
Warlord
I'd say Napoleon, he was, in my mind, the smartest leader that ever lived. he wasent killed by a weapon, like choice 1 and 2 were... 
Most powerfull ruler on earth... ever
- Thread starter weimar_republic
- Start date
DaEezT
Civ, Pizza, Spam, Repeat
I would say Hitler.
Driving people into such fanatism to make them do things like the concentration camp and getting germany into war preperations so shortly after the defeat in WW1 makes him stand out of the other listed persons. Also the way he handled the other nations.
Even though Hitler's reign was nothing to be proud about his ability as a leader was definitly very strong.
Driving people into such fanatism to make them do things like the concentration camp and getting germany into war preperations so shortly after the defeat in WW1 makes him stand out of the other listed persons. Also the way he handled the other nations.
Even though Hitler's reign was nothing to be proud about his ability as a leader was definitly very strong.
shadowdale
CFC Drunkard
hmmm Why did you chose Caesar af the Roman representative???
He was "only" a dictator in the last years of the Roman republic, the later Roman Emperors were much more powerfull, my guess would be Trajan or Hadrian, I can't remember which had the large Empire.
He was "only" a dictator in the last years of the Roman republic, the later Roman Emperors were much more powerfull, my guess would be Trajan or Hadrian, I can't remember which had the large Empire.
Graeme the mad
Certified Maniac
By sheer land area - it is actually Queen victoria
spycatcher34
Emperor
Hmmm suprised Whasington hasnt gotten more votes...
(BTW w_r stop with all the polls all redy your driving me:crazyeyes )
(BTW w_r stop with all the polls all redy your driving me:crazyeyes )
starlifter
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2001
- Messages
- 4,210
From the choices, the Roman Empire was clearly the most dominate of their era. Caesar, however, was killed long before Rome reached it's zenith. Emperor Augustus (for whome the month of August is named!) was the ruler in 0AD. Later emperors expanded Rome rule, then divided it.
The Vikings of AD 800-AD1100 ruled and "tamed" more of the world than even the Romans. The very name "Russia" derives from the Viking term "Russ", which refers to the viking military on the shallow draft boats used to navigate the waterways of modern Russia, Ukraine, etc.... from Kiev to Constantinople. The Vikings colonized from North America to the far reaches of Russia and the far east... they ruled the seas in their era, too.
Hitler's scope was too limited, and he was defeated by the most powerful nation in the history of mankind.
Napolean accomplished more than Hitler, in his era.
Washington did more with less than any of the others, and against longer odds. However, his army was nowhere near the most powerful of it's era. Britain, France, Spain plus likely Japan, China, and arguably some native associations of tribes in the Americas were all more powerful.
Khan was impressive, as were some of the otehrs listed.
But Rome was the bull in the chinacloset, of its era.
The Vikings of AD 800-AD1100 ruled and "tamed" more of the world than even the Romans. The very name "Russia" derives from the Viking term "Russ", which refers to the viking military on the shallow draft boats used to navigate the waterways of modern Russia, Ukraine, etc.... from Kiev to Constantinople. The Vikings colonized from North America to the far reaches of Russia and the far east... they ruled the seas in their era, too.
Hitler's scope was too limited, and he was defeated by the most powerful nation in the history of mankind.
Napolean accomplished more than Hitler, in his era.
Washington did more with less than any of the others, and against longer odds. However, his army was nowhere near the most powerful of it's era. Britain, France, Spain plus likely Japan, China, and arguably some native associations of tribes in the Americas were all more powerful.
Khan was impressive, as were some of the otehrs listed.
But Rome was the bull in the chinacloset, of its era.
Karl Marx the Penguin
Comrade Penguin
I can't speak for the poller but the question is about the leader not his empire. The question is who was the best leader of all time. Who was the best strategist, thinker, morale booster, etc. We are talkin' about the man (or woman but that's unlikely) who could talk a 500 men armed with rifles to fight 1000 men with machine guns and somehow be able to kill half the enemy. We are talking about someone who by sheer will would be able to bring enemies to there kneees. We are talkin' about a person who's leadership abilities were so good he could take 1% of the world's population and lead them all to their certain deaths, and have only minor deserting even though they all knew what was going to happen.
Obviously such a man hasn't came, but the closest is either Napolean, or Hitler
Obviously such a man hasn't came, but the closest is either Napolean, or Hitler
Magnus
Diplocat
KHAAAAAN!!!!!!
they kicked ass and only their customs of stopping conquest when their leader died gave the world enough breeathing space to survive their deadly onslaught.
they kicked ass and only their customs of stopping conquest when their leader died gave the world enough breeathing space to survive their deadly onslaught.
TheDuckOfFlanders
the fish collecter
The most powerfull leader in history?
Definitly möngke khan, son of djenhis.djenhis would come second.
When djenhis died ,the Mongels hadden yet counquered regions like East europe & mesopotamia.kubilai was theoreticaly the ruler of the biggest mongel empire ,but he had no control over some Khanates like the Golden horde.Under the rule of môngke the biggest amout of territory was under the control of one person.
You can say that some nations in their time were almost as powerfull as the Mongels in their time.But the Mongel ruler was a tiran ,and thus had more power over his nation than a monarch or president had.
It come's close between America in 1945-50,england in post colonial times and the mongels under möngke in term's of the power of a nation.But the Mongel ruler had more power over his nation than the american president had in that time or the english king.
Definitly möngke khan, son of djenhis.djenhis would come second.
When djenhis died ,the Mongels hadden yet counquered regions like East europe & mesopotamia.kubilai was theoreticaly the ruler of the biggest mongel empire ,but he had no control over some Khanates like the Golden horde.Under the rule of môngke the biggest amout of territory was under the control of one person.
You can say that some nations in their time were almost as powerfull as the Mongels in their time.But the Mongel ruler was a tiran ,and thus had more power over his nation than a monarch or president had.
It come's close between America in 1945-50,england in post colonial times and the mongels under möngke in term's of the power of a nation.But the Mongel ruler had more power over his nation than the american president had in that time or the english king.
PinkyGen
Paper copying intern
The question is the most powerfull ruler.
Therefor, I shall quote Captain Kirk and go "Khaaaaaaaaannnnnn!!!"
His Mongol hordes roamed from China to the mideast to Europe. (And they would have taken Europe too if he hadn't died.) Definetly the most powerful empire, it just didn't last long.
And Khan II, the last of the great dicatators, starter of the Eugenics wars, ruler of 1/3rd of the Earth, foe of the Great Captain Kirk, he belongs on the list too.
I know, I'm a trekkie.
Therefor, I shall quote Captain Kirk and go "Khaaaaaaaaannnnnn!!!"
His Mongol hordes roamed from China to the mideast to Europe. (And they would have taken Europe too if he hadn't died.) Definetly the most powerful empire, it just didn't last long.
And Khan II, the last of the great dicatators, starter of the Eugenics wars, ruler of 1/3rd of the Earth, foe of the Great Captain Kirk, he belongs on the list too.
I know, I'm a trekkie.
scorch
Legalize Pot
I *think* i voted Napolean.
But i think that Hitler was one of the most significant leaders ever.
Me and my mate got in an arguement with the rest of the class about it, we were argueing, that apart from killing all those jews, hitler was a really good guy.
People instantly think that hitler was really bad and **** like that because he killed all the jews. Sure, i agree, hitler was wrong there. But i think that if he wasn't killing the jews, he would be the man. Sure he tried taking over the world, it just proves that he was a Civ Fanatics.
Think of all the cool things he did, Germany was fastly approaching Third World status. I think that that allies were wrong in what they did at the end of WWI, they made that Pact thinggy, that didn't allow Germany 2 do anything, as a result, germany plunged into Hyperinflation and starvation. Surely you understand a few germans (like hitler) being bitter about it. See what hitler did, he brought germany from a puny country, 2 one of the most powerful in the world at the time. I think hitler may have even won the war, or atlest done some cool damage if he had listened 2 his advisors and not raided russia. I look up 2 hitler because of the way he didn't accept how germany was being treated, and changed everything.
But i think that Hitler was one of the most significant leaders ever.
Me and my mate got in an arguement with the rest of the class about it, we were argueing, that apart from killing all those jews, hitler was a really good guy.
People instantly think that hitler was really bad and **** like that because he killed all the jews. Sure, i agree, hitler was wrong there. But i think that if he wasn't killing the jews, he would be the man. Sure he tried taking over the world, it just proves that he was a Civ Fanatics
. Think of all the cool things he did, Germany was fastly approaching Third World status. I think that that allies were wrong in what they did at the end of WWI, they made that Pact thinggy, that didn't allow Germany 2 do anything, as a result, germany plunged into Hyperinflation and starvation. Surely you understand a few germans (like hitler) being bitter about it. See what hitler did, he brought germany from a puny country, 2 one of the most powerful in the world at the time. I think hitler may have even won the war, or atlest done some cool damage if he had listened 2 his advisors and not raided russia. I look up 2 hitler because of the way he didn't accept how germany was being treated, and changed everything.
TheDuckOfFlanders
the fish collecter
yes ,but partly by onorthodox ways.in that time ,jews were in general financialy very resourcefull.Confescating all money from the jews was financialy a very interresting move.And germany wasn't that puny at that time ,it had not been that war torn like france.And all econnomy's in europe suffered a lot from world war one and the 1929 Wall Street crash.Infrastructually germany was still strong after ww1.Only the super-high war reperation imposed on them after ww1 were a very big restrain on the economy.Hitler just stoped paying those reperations ,and that was a big factor for the speeding growth of the german economy in that time.And Germany had the potential to fastly grow in that time.It had acces to a lot of seconomical very interresting resources.
hitler wasn't that great.
On the other hand i find that there is too much (boring) ant-3reich propaganda in this world.
I mean ,They have tutored me so much about the holocaust in school that it is realy coming out of my ears.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Scorch? From wannabe commie to fascist sympathizer?
Apart from the matter of killing Jews, Hitler was "a really good guy"?
Maybe you need to look at a bit more history,as he did a lot of other things other than attempting to exterminate the Jews that were equally reprehensible, just smaller in scale...
Communists, even "Communist hopefuls", were persecuted and liquidated, so this "looking up" to Hitler is incongrous with stated positions elsewhere, and is concerning, when taken in various contexts.
But you are young, from New Zealand, and in your own words, "have a room temperature IQ", so I will not read too much into this
It can be argued that Hitler had a big impact, and was an extremely powerful leader, and even had some degree of greatness, but this last point must be qualified by stating that greatness is by no means a precursor for goodness. Indeed, history is littered with great men and women who were most certainly not "good" from contemporary moral perspectives.
Me, I query as to why Stalin is not on the list. His may not have been the most powerful country in the world, but his hold on power was arguably all his (Beria was a help, but always a nefarious, paedophilic henchman rather than a power behind the throne).
In this sense of not answering to any oversight, as must a US President, the totalitarian and despotic leaders can be said to fill the top positions. Their will and whim was law.
Thus I cannot bring myself to split Napoleon and Hitler, as both were powerful in this respect, in slightly differing ways.
Apart from the matter of killing Jews, Hitler was "a really good guy"?
Maybe you need to look at a bit more history,as he did a lot of other things other than attempting to exterminate the Jews that were equally reprehensible, just smaller in scale...
Communists, even "Communist hopefuls", were persecuted and liquidated, so this "looking up" to Hitler is incongrous with stated positions elsewhere, and is concerning, when taken in various contexts.
But you are young, from New Zealand, and in your own words, "have a room temperature IQ", so I will not read too much into this
It can be argued that Hitler had a big impact, and was an extremely powerful leader, and even had some degree of greatness, but this last point must be qualified by stating that greatness is by no means a precursor for goodness. Indeed, history is littered with great men and women who were most certainly not "good" from contemporary moral perspectives.
Me, I query as to why Stalin is not on the list. His may not have been the most powerful country in the world, but his hold on power was arguably all his (Beria was a help, but always a nefarious, paedophilic henchman rather than a power behind the throne).
In this sense of not answering to any oversight, as must a US President, the totalitarian and despotic leaders can be said to fill the top positions. Their will and whim was law.
Thus I cannot bring myself to split Napoleon and Hitler, as both were powerful in this respect, in slightly differing ways.
scorch
Legalize Pot
uh oh, i think my popularity points just went down....
Moved to our new History forum!!!
willemvanoranje
Curitibano
Now I could vote what I wanted! Frederick!!!
.:KNAS:.
Civfanatic
Mcdread, u r so right, alexander the great is THE best counqueror of all time, at a battle BC 333 he with only 15000 men beat the persian army of 250 000 men. Rock hard, dude
Similar threads
