Top 5 Greatest Statesmen/Emperor/King/Queen/President in History
- Thread starter Transkar
- Start date
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
Henry VIII declared himself an Emperor, so at least there's that.
Really? I never knew that. What of, pray-tell?
Moderator Action: Can we keep things vaguely (a) on-topic and (b) non-spammy, please?
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Einherjar777
Chieftain
1. Napoleon for his huge empire, his european unity and modernization
2. Stalin for his world war 2 winning while creating a huge empire with peoples unity
3. Genghis Khan He changed for ever the face of the world by conquering China and coming even in Europe
4. Alexander the great for his conquest of Persia, Babylon and coming even to India.
5. Ammurabi for the first code of law ever made in history (Quite an impressive change)
2. Stalin for his world war 2 winning while creating a huge empire with peoples unity
3. Genghis Khan He changed for ever the face of the world by conquering China and coming even in Europe
4. Alexander the great for his conquest of Persia, Babylon and coming even to India.
5. Ammurabi for the first code of law ever made in history (Quite an impressive change)
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
I know it's a lot to ask seeing as how this thread is now 40 pages long, but please read the thread before you post. A lot of the men you mention have already been addressed and refuted as "great statesmen" for various reasons, notably Napoléon, Chinggis Khaang, and Alexander the Great.
Einherjar777
Chieftain
History is a matter of cultural and thought about how to see fact, there isn't only one way to see history.
If I havn't got the same culture and way of thinking than you, I won't see events as you see them
History is written by winners
Winners will show aspects that serve them best, not every facts or way to see them if you see my point
If I havn't got the same culture and way of thinking than you, I won't see events as you see them
History is written by winners
Winners will show aspects that serve them best, not every facts or way to see them if you see my point
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
That's nice. Now go read the thread.
Moderator Action: Infracted for trolling. This is meant to be a civilised discussion, not an opportunity to belittle others for having a different point of view.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
This is my nomination for post of the year. I literally choked on a french fry reading this.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,204
For someone who created a huge empire, holding it together by not declaring war on everybody nearby is generally a pretty good idea. Nappy was influential certiantly, but great?
So trashing the Soviet economy, fouling up military strategy, and only winning the Second World War because the Germans had no real hope of winning makes him a good candidate for "great"? The only reasons the Nazi army did so well was because Stalin had trashed the Red Army and decided to play general.
As much as I am fascinated by the Soviet Union I think it would be hard for any of their leaders to be characterized as 'great'. Influential certiantly, but not great.
I dunno, some of the Elizabeth-gasms might be a good challenger.
Emperor Giulio
King
Also, executing Soviet prisoners of war for being "traitors" is a pretty despicable thing to do. Stalin did more damage to the war cause than good. He executed his top generals, forced his troops to follow predictable and repetitive strategies, and initially attempted to command the war himself which was a miserable failure. I believe the lion's share of credit should go to men like General Zhukov.
One can make the argument that Napoleon was great in the Hegelian or Nietzchian sense, by which is meant that he caused huge and monumental things to happen through his own strength of character, rather than being carried with the current of events: I'm not sure I agree with that view, mind, but it has been used a lot. Alexander certainly fits that description: although he can't really be given credit for the state of war with Persia or his advantages at the beginning of it, he can be given credit for the sheer aggression with which he pushed his goals forward through his own energy, which probably qualifies him as 'Great' in this sense.
AnthonyBoscia
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,847
Probably the 20-odd million Soviet citizens that didn't make it to May 9th, too.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
I generally agree that Zhukov was by no means a great commander (maybe I am too biased by reading Viktor Suvorov's Zhukov-bashing books though), but blaming Zhukov for all of over 20 million Soviet deaths in WW2 (about 50% or perhaps even more of whom were civilians) is rather odd.
Emperor Giulio
King
There is no doubt to that, especially since there was probably one man with a rifle out of every twenty. But we also have to acknowledge mother nature's role in the USSR's victory as well.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Myth. Actually the Russian army had a great shortage of rifles in WW1, but this never happened in WW2.
They had shortage of some other things after the initial disastrous defeats of 1941, though.
This is patently untrue.
History is written, tautologically, by the people who write history, and those people ended up on the losing side of a given struggle (whether political, military, social, or whatever) as often as not. Thoukydides' History of the Peloponnesian War, arguably the first work of history ever, was written from the standpoint of a citizen of the polis that lost the war in question, and who was attempting to create an exculpatory tradition that absolved himself and his political allies of guilt for entering the war and for the subsequent Athenian defeat. Napoleon himself lost his wars, but due to the assiduous actions of his followers and to his own efforts in creating his memoirs, he successfully transformed his image from Antichrist and Scourge of God into a true Romantic hero (from Dal'kannith to Khryl, as it were), the latter of which has largely endured down to the present day among the general populace. The ongoing popularity of 'Lost Cause' works written by former southern traitors and their admirers to explain away the defeat and destruction of the slaveholding, morally bankrupt Confederacy and still allow them to claim that the Confederacy was intrinsically superior to any alternative surely also indicates that the losers have a continuing appeal in historical annals.
The list could go on ad infinitum. Eumenes of Kardia. Demosthenes. Erich Ludendorff. Patrice MacMahon. The White Russian refugees after 1917. Jiang Jieshi. Atatürk. The overwhelming majority of literate Japanese society after 1945. You get the idea.
One of the more amusing side effects of all this is that it throws your own list into a different light.
For example: you claimed that Napoleon promoted European unity, "modernization", and lauded him for his huge empire. A huge empire he may have had, but he never pretended that he was even remotely interested in European unity. His empire was for himself in the first place, and the French in the second. The rest of Europe was reduced to colonies and vassals, both of which Napoleon squeezed dry of funds and soldiers, or to enemies (and frequently both at the same time). As for his "modernization", when it was a conscious effort and evenly applied, it was done solely for the goal of increasing Napoleon's own power and resources. And he frequently did things that were not so modern, either. His Civil Code extended the powers of the patriarchy like never before. He created a new class of military aristocracy leeching off the states of Europe. His economic colonization of Europe - what is sometimes referred to as the Continental System for reasons of Napoleonic propaganda - dislocated certain major industries and wiped out local economies. And, of course, most obviously, he ******ed the political development of France by making the whole country into a personal monarchy, more Mafia kingpin than even a king, much less president or prime minister. Napoleon might have taken a few steps 'forward' in some respects by rationalizing certain regional governments to make his war machine more effective, but he also unquestionably took several steps 'back' in most other respects.
Does this mean that you're 'not allowed' to think that Napoleon was a great statesman or ruler or whatever? Of course not. You're right: a lot of history is about points of view, and nobody can take your opinion away from you. That's what historiography is about: a conversation between historians (or cacophony, as seems to be the case more often than not) involving exchanging points of view about the past. But at the same time, history is about wie es eigentlich gewesen - "how it actually was" - and the opinions one forms about history should be based on fact, not fantasy. And your opinions seem, in the main, to be based on the latter and not the former.
Owen's general lack of helpfulness aside, he did have a decent point. It would behoove you to read what historians have written about Napoleon or whomever, or at the absolute minimum what people in this forum have written about that person, to get a sense of whether your opinions are rooted in fact.
Emperor Giulio
King
Find me at least 3 reputable sources which states that it is a myth, and I will believe you.
AnthonyBoscia
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,847
xxxxx
Last edited:
Those are total numbers produced - during the Battle of Stalingrad, many units were reduced to fighting hand-to-hand by shortages of weapons or, more often, ammunition.
