Who is the greatest leader in the history of the world?

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

Reagan (strongly approve of everything.  greatest Pres in American history and maybe the greatest leader in the history of the world)

Urukagina had definite potential, but he was largely a failure in office.

[Lіef]

Cyrus the Great

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

Gustavus Adolphus

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

From an aggressively republican political system, Augustus was able to create a monarchy and a system that, though in itself brittle, could be changed enough for it to last a millenium and a half. However, for most of the last millenium, the Roman Empire was not Roman, and for the latter half of itss existence it was not truly an Empire.

Qin I, on the other hand, already had a monarchical tradition to begin with, but he created a larger and longer-lasting empire, but it was not really his Empire for very long after his death. The credit for modern China goes not to him, but to his successor as Emperor over all of China, the little-known Confucianist peasant Gaozu of Han. It is he who I name as the greatest leader.

[Stranger in a strange land]

George Washington, because he led his army to victory against the most powerful empire in the world, guided his country through it's extremely difficult formative years, and willingly gave up power when he could easily have ruled for life, thereby bequeathing to the United States a tradition of peaceful transfers of power.

[dead0man]

Gilgamesh
Genghis Khan
Napoleon
Saladin
Cyrus
Ashoka

Lots of good arguments could be made for lots of different dudes.

[??????????]

Caesar, though Napoleon had a lot of potential.

[Lіef]

Genghis Khan

Er... really? I guess conquering half the world is nice, but he was kind of a barbarian.

[Vasall des Midas]

Nym

[HappyWarrior]

I totally agree with Lief.  Cyrus the Great.

[Jack Vance RIP]

In terms of achievements? Mohammed or Shi Huang Di unquestionably.

In terms of actually good? Who knows, perhaps we are still waiting for. Some of those Indian Philosopher Kings are interesting however. I'll write in Ashoka.

[Grumps]

I agree with Coburn (boy that's a first).

[Swedish Cheese]

Gustavus Adolphus

No he was not!

He was an exellent military leader and general no doubt, but besides that he wasn't a great leader. The good things that happened in Sweden during his reign was mainly the work of his chancellor, Axel Oxenstierna, who ran the kingdom while dear Gustavus was away fighting in Poland and Germany.

He, and his daughter Queen Kristina after him, ruined the Crown's economy, by giving away almost all it's land to the nobility. The woman and children starved here at home while their husbands and brothers got slaughtered in Germany under the impression they were defending the Lutheran faith, while they were actually just pawns in Gustavus ambition to create a Nordic Empire with himself as the monarch.

He wasn't a bad king, but We have had been better. I can think of at least three kings that were better leaders for Sweden. And compered to every other leader in the world, he wouldn't make top ten.

                                    

___________________  

 

I think Napoleon was probably the best. He was charismatic, and was very well liked by his people. He was a fantasticly talanted general, and he did a lot of good for France.

He has gotten quite an unfortunate reputation thanks to the British, but truth is Napoleon was rather nice guy. For example, when in Egypt, Napoleon won a great battle and captured thousands of enemy soldiers. His adviousors told him to execute them, but he refused to and allowed them to be freed even though he knew they'd fight him again.    

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

Compared to his opponents, Napoleon was a good person, certainly, but he was a failure. His accomplishments number only two, in my opinion: creating the modern Germany, and (more importantly) democratizing armies, which made democratization of the state inevitable. When I say "democratic state", I do not mean "democracy". A democratic state is a state that relies on the people for support. In World War I, several states were explicitly antidemocratic, but by World War II, every state was fully democratic except for partially democratic Japan.

Hmm, guess I started rambling there.

[Lіef]

I would give Napoleon the "title" if his empire had lasted more than 15 years, but all of his military successes were fleeting and by the end of his reign France was right back to where they started (though with some nice societal reforms).

[pogo stick]

George W. Bush and Benjamin Netanyahu tie.

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

George W. Bush and Benjamin Netanyahu tie.

Please leave.

[Senator Libertas]

Numa Pompilius

Antoninus Pius

Karl I of Austria and Nicias get honorable mention, though both tragic figures

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

Ah, there are some interesting names! Charles especially; I'd like to hear why.

[Senator Libertas]

Ah, there are some interesting names! Charles especially; I'd like to hear why.

I consider war the most cowardly action a leader could engage in, and the pursuit of peace the noblest. Karl I represented traditional decentralization, peace, and restraint in governing, a stark contrast to the rise of the centralized state and nationalist ideology that marked his time. He was truly the anti-Wilson, the last of his kind in the 20th century. Of course the very traits which made him a good leader made him a weak politician, and Wilson was successful in destroying him in the pursuit of his New World Order.

[The Duke]

Optimus Prime

[JSojourner]

George W. Bush and Benjamin Netanyahu tie.

Please leave.

Seconded. 

[Ringorules]

Just to toss a name out there- how about Charlemagne?  Arguably the first real Westerner.

[Vepres]

Julius Caesar. He took a democratic (relative to the time) empire, the strongest in the world at the time, and made himself dictator with the consent of the people, without forcefully overthrowing the government. He trusted people too much though. Et tu, Brute.

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

Ah, there are some interesting names! Charles especially; I'd like to hear why.

I consider war the most cowardly action a leader could engage in, and the pursuit of peace the noblest. Karl I represented traditional decentralization, peace, and restraint in governing, a stark contrast to the rise of the centralized state and nationalist ideology that marked his time. He was truly the anti-Wilson, the last of his kind in the 20th century. Of course the very traits which made him a good leader made him a weak politician, and Wilson was successful in destroying him in the pursuit of his New World Order.

Ah, I see. That explains Numa as well. I take it you have read Plutarch? But as far as peacemakers go, wouldn't someone more effective at peace be more fitting? Someone like, say, Metternich?

Julius Caesar. He took a democratic (relative to the time) empire, the strongest in the world at the time, and made himself dictator with the consent of the people, without forcefully overthrowing the government. He trusted people too much though. Et tu, Brutae.

Brute, not brutae.

But what Caesar did, creating a dictatorship a republic, has happened many times. What made him special?

Just to toss a name out there- how about Charlemagne?  Arguably the first real Westerner.

Interesting. But what accomplishments did Charlemagne have other than the Empire, which was neither wholly his nor all that important?