Best leader in history? And the Weekly Debate #2.

[<3Sari<3]

Also I do agree that this list is kind of limited. Even if you were talking about war time leaders.

[Khalee]

OK, basic principles the way I see it:

Napolean conquered countries and they rebelled against him and went their own way = FAIL

Alexander conquered countries and after his death his people rebelled against unity and scattered it all to pieces = FAIL

Julius Caesar conquered countries, survived a civil war to become ultimate ruler of the Roman Empire, then ruined his own success by trying to become a dictator = FAIL

However..... Julius Caesar AUGUSTUS (aka Octavian) was the leader from whom all other leaders should take their cue. He took a rebelling empire, restructured it to benefit the people, worked with his generals to sometimes expand, but at least secure territories, and managed to create a civilisation that would endure long beyond his own time. He gave his people freedom, security and long-lasting peace (also ostensibly honesty, but I'm sure this would be debated) what more could a leader provide?
~

[Rodri]

i think that Genghis Khan conquered more land than any other military leader. like you, im waiting for conrad

Genghis Kahn not only conquered a huge amount of territory but he also conquered a nation that was considered to be far more powerful in China, then went on to rule over his empire until the end of his life and his decendants went on to rule China down to Kublai Kahn.

He was a success both militarily and as a ruler, which is more than can be said for the three choices offered.

[MrHyde]

I put only European leaders, as comparing Europe and Asian militaries/leadership cant be compared (And Im Asian too!)...

I might put up a thread with Genghis and some other butt kicking leaders in Asia :P.

Anyways, agreed with Octavian... wasnt thinking of him much at all. But yes, 200 years of peace after his death is very good of track record, as well as his expansion. Thanks for restarting my memory.

PS. In addition to the Asian leaders, how about modern ones?

(WWI-Present)... just a thought lol. Probably not though.

[Alusair]

I find myself nodding at Rodri's contribution again. I suspect Genghis Khan tends to get overlooked in western culture history, since he's from the east.

[MrHyde]

Yes, Alusair, Rodri,

but even as a Korean, I cant find myself to compare the likes of Gwangetto the Great, Hideyoshi, Genghis and Kublai Khan, Chandragupya Mauraya to the likes of Napoleon, Caesar, Alexander the Great, Louis XIV, etc.

[Alusair]

Fair enough. Maybe you could emphasize that the discussion pertains to "Western" leaders in the main post too then, so people know that clarification.

Also, for the record, I have no idea what Five Guys or In 'N Out are.

[Aisukaze]

But for the case of Genghis Khan, his empire didn't last far beyond his death, though the influence from his conquests might still be felt. He didn't really keep a lasting Mongolian dynasty after his death, but he did conquer lots of places, and his work eventually led to the establishment of the Yuan dynasty in China.

And if we compare the three leaders Hyde chose, well I don't really know much about Napoleon.. So..

For Julius Caesar, he overthrew the Roman Republic, but it was Augustus who established the empire. As dictator, Caesar didn't really have that much time to make reforms, institute long terms projects, etc, before he was killed by the senate. However, he did go into Gaul and extend Roman influence there.

Alexander the Great, on the other hand, extended the Hellenistic influence across the region, which set the field for development after his death. All the cities that he set up helped spread the Hellenistic world afterwards; the Alexandria in Egypt is still prominent today.

I think that since Augustus was the one to begin the Roman Empire, and Caesar merely set the stage for that, Caesar didn't do that much in planning for the future (well he died), while Alexander's work actually was prevalent for the generations after him, so between those two, Alexander the Great was probably more influential.

[Alzar]

Comparing Genghis Khan and Napoleon could occur for days on end because what it boils down to is that both established fear in their enemies and that is what made them so ruthless. But Though the Mongols did conquer much land Napoleons rule was much more for the nations as they usually kept their governments and they also had increased trade output from the protection of Napoleons army. As for the Mongols they did center more on tradition and much stayed the same in the lands they conquered its just they didn’t grow and thrive like they did under the reign of Napoleon.

So really in conclusion they were proboley the most a like rulers in their reign and their warfare for both also used new maneuvers never before seen such as flanking and armored Calvary which effected not just their empires but all empires around the world and those to come. With the fall of the mongols though new empires emerged like the new Russian empire and the Ottoman Empire which thrived for a time but consolidation of modernization caused both to fall at their own rate.

So my final statement on the matter is really Genghis and Napoleon are so alike that it is hard to pick the better one but seeing the time of which Napoleon ruled he effected the world more than Genghis did who was more consolidated to Asia.

[SickbyDefinition]

No more Ghengis Khan. Hyde has clarified that this thread is for Western leaders discussion.
Also


Conrad is here. o.o