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

[Khalee]

I still agree with the cat...

[Conrad_Jalowski]

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 disagree with this particular segment of your post. The existence and physiognomy of the Levantine community arose as a consequence of the uneven nature of Hellenism in the East. At the termination of Alexander's Asiatic conquests, Hellenic culture and letters became entrenched in the dense urban centers of the Mediterranean littoral. Even though the prevailing cultural tone was Hellenic, the indigenous Semitic population of these cities were not completely submerged. The core of the Hellenistic East existed in the Hellenized cities of the Mediterranean littoral: Alexandria, Beyrouth and Antioch on the Orontes.

Strewn across Iran were the cities founded by Alexander, ephemeral creations for the most part that failed to leave any roots, even in the soil of the philhellene Parthian Empire of the Arsacids. The autochthonous traditions and cultures of the former Achaemenid Persian Empire managed to efface the Hellenistic influence that had emerged at the termination of Alexander's Asiatic conquests. The most durable legacy of Alexandros III Megas to Central Asia was the establishment of the Indo-Bactrian kingdoms (Greco-Bactrian Kingdom: 250-125 BCE and the Indo-Greek Kingdom: 180 BCE-10 CE). The last Greek princeling Heliocles capitulated to the invading Yuezhi in 125 BCE.

(On the League of Corinth and the Asiatic Conquests of Alexandros III Megas):

King Philip II of Macedon was Hegemon of the League of Corinth (Synedrion: Congress of Representatives) after the decisive victory gained at Chaeronea in 338 BCE over the combined forces of the Athenians and Thebans. Alexandros III Megas acquired Anatolia (Excluding Bithynia, Pontus, portions of Cappadocia and Armenia) after the battle of the Granicus River in 334 BCE while the Levant was acquired after the engagement of Issus in 333 BCE. Alexander's territorial hegemony extended to the Euphrates River after the acquisition of Phoenicia, the brutal capture of New Tyre, the seizure of Gaza and the peaceful annexation of Egypt. The climactic battle of Gaugamela allowed the Macedonians to capture the royal residence of Babylon. With Gaugamela, Alexander III assumed the royal position of the Achaemenid despots. To achieve an empire that would equal the territorial expanse of the Achaemenid Persian Empire and to subdue the rebellious tribes that had proclaimed their allegiance to the cause of Bessus (Satrap of Bactria) who assumed the royal appellation of Artaxerxes V, the Macedonians invaded the eastern satrapies of the tottering Achaemenid Persian Empire. In order to consolidate his position as the successor to the dynasty of the Achaemenid despots, Alexandros III Megas sought to extirpate the autochthonous tribes in the eastern satrapies of the tottering Achaemenid Empire as well as to slay Artaxerxes V (Bessus: Satrap of Bactria). In the territory between the Oxus River and Jaxartes River, the Macedonians fought against the Scythians and were required to contend with their asymmetrical style of combat. The northernmost Central Asian colony founded by Alexandros III Megas was Alexandria Eschate. After the capture of Sogdian Rock (Rock of Ariamazes), the Macedonians had successfully subjugated the region of Sogdiana. The remaining vestige of effective Persian resistance (329-328 BCE) was eliminated on the subjugation of the rebel forces under the Sogdian warlord Spitamenes at the battle of Gabai in 328 BCE. In the Macedonian expedition to the Indus, the Battle of Hydaspes which was fought between Alexandros III Megas and the Indian Porus in 326 BCE allowed the Macedonians to secure the Indus region. (The Grecians during the reign of Demetrius I Aniketos would continue in their advances into the Indian subcontinent (180-175 BCE). During the apogee of the Indo-Greek invasions of the Indian subcontinent, the Greek presence extended to Pataliputra. The territorial zenith and the apogee of the political dominance of the Indo-Greek Kingdom would be achieved during the reign of Menander I Soter).

(The Negative Features of the Reign of Alexandros III Megas):

-Even before his death in Babylon in 323 BCE, the eastern border (The territories of Bactria, Ferghana and Sogdiana) was already devolving into chaos and disorder, and internal fissures had emerged between the invading Macedonian soldiers and the subjugated populace of the former Asiatic empire of the Achaemenids.

-Alexandros III Megas never subjugated or integrated the regions in Anatolia such as Cappadocia (First invested by the Diadochi Perdiccas for his lieutenant Eumenes of Cardia in the Diadochian conflicts between the Separatists and Royalists in the beginning phase of the Wars of Succession), Bithynia, Pontus and Armenia.

-Alexandros III Megas increasingly became avaricious and eventually succumbed to his hubris. He indulged in bacchanalian revelries and demonstrated a lack of moderation and self-restraint. The riches of the Orient had dulled his intellect and inflamed his senses. An example of Alexander’s absence of self-restraint would be the destruction of Persepolis. In the Persian heartland, the ceremonial capital of Persepolis was consumed by a conflagration after the Macedonian soldiers of Alexandros III Megas descended into inebriation. Alexander III permitted an Athenian harlot to extend her poisonous influence over him. In retaliation for the Persian sack of Athens during the invasion of Greece by the Achaemenid despot Xerxes I, the Athenian harlot demanded the burning of Persepolis. The inebriated Alexander did not dissuade her from her established goal. Instead, the truculent despot participated in the destruction of Persepolis.

-It is possible to state that the ultimate legacy of Alexandros III Megas was an uninterrupted succession of destructive military engagements. The Wars of the Diadochi consisted of the engagements of Paraitacene, Gabiene, Gaza, Salamis, Rhodes, Ipsus and Corupedium (Corupedion). The immediate outcome of Alexander’s Asiatic conquests was the fragmented and politically fissiparous realm that consisted of the four main successor states of the Antigonids (323-146 BCE), the Ptolemies (323-30 BCE), the Seleucids (312-63 BCE) and the Attalids (282-133 BCE). In the eventual struggle between the pugnacious Romans and the enervated Hellenistic East, Rome defeated the Macedonian forces at the engagements of Cynoscephalae (197 BCE) and Pydna (168 BCE), crushed the revolt of the pseudo-Philip or Andriscus (149-148 BCE), dissolved the Achaean Confederation with the sack of Corinth in 146 BCE, acquired the city of Pergamon of the Attalid Dynasty which was bequeathed to the Romans in 133 BCE, subdued the forces of Mithridates VI Eupator Dionysius of Pontus during the Three Mithridatic Wars, forced the submission of Tigranes II the Great of Armenia to the Roman state and dissolved the Seleucid monarchy in which the last competing dynasts to the Seleucid throne (Antiochus XIII Asiaticus and Philip II Philorhomais) were eliminated.

(The Parthian Empire and the Indo-Bactrian Kingdoms):

A satrap was a regional administrator (Governor) in the Old Persian Empire or the Achaemenid Persian Empire (550-330 BCE). It was used in the Greco-Macedonian Empire of Alexandros III Megas. The satrapal system functioned as the main territorial component of the Seleucid Empire (312-63 BCE). The Arsacid Dynasty of Parthia (First capital: Dara, Succeeding capital: Hecatompylos) reverted to a more traditional form of governance that consisted of minor or petty kingdoms. The assemblage of minor kingdoms was subservient to the central authority of the Parthian Basileus. Due to the heterogeneous gathering of minor kings who were subject to the dominion of the reigning Arsacid monarch, the appellation of "King of Kings" was eventually utilized. The satrapal system has its origin in the Assyrian warrior-king Tiglath-Pileser III who attempted to insert cohesion and territorial stability to the Western Asiatic empire of the Assyrians (Neo-Assyrian Empire: 934-609 BCE). The Parthian territories (The succeeding empire of the Sassanians are also included in this description: 224-651 CE) that were positioned alongside the Indus River became detached from the Arsacid capital of Ctesiphon. The Indian possessions of the Parthians merged together to form the Indo-Parthian Kingdom. In summary, the Parthian Empire (Territorial zenith during the reign of Mithridates II the Great) was an amalgam of local authorities, minor kings and regional holdings that were subjugated by the Parthian incursions into Tapuria, Traxiane and Hyrcania. The Parthians managed to triumph over the forces of the eastern expedition of Antiochus VII Euergetes Sidetes (Reigned: 138-129 BCE) of the diminishing realm of the Seleucids. The Parthians managed to wrest the peripheral territories of the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. Parthia arose after the rebellious Seleucid satrap Andragoras (Rebellion: 247-245 BCE) was slain during the invasion of the Parni in 238 BCE. The Greco-Bactrian Kingdom arose out of the political ambitions of the rebellious Bactrian satrap Diodotus (255 BCE).

[Conrad_Jalowski]

The subsequent history of the Greco-Bactrians (250-125 BCE) was divided into the succession of the three dynasties of the Diodotid (250-230 BCE), Euthydemid (230-170 BCE) and Eucratid (170-125 BCE). The last Greco-Bactrian princeling Heliocles yielded to the migrations of the Yuezhi in 125 BCE. The Indo-Greek Kingdom (180 BCE-10 CE) emerged from the Indian expedition of Demetrius I Aniketos who invaded the Indian subcontinent from 180-175 BCE. The apogee of the Indo-Greek Kingdom was achieved during the reign of Menander I Soter. It has been stated (Based on inscriptions, numismatic evidence and historical records) that the Greek conquests in the Indian subcontinent extended to Pataliputra. Certain sources portray the Indo-Greek monarchs as greatly extending their conquests beyond the eastern confines of Alexander's empire. The Indo-Greek Kingdom maintained its political existence until 10 CE in which Strato II Soter and his son Strato III Soter Philopater yielded their diminutive state to the Indo-Scythians.

(The Thermidorian Reaction):

The term Thermidor refers to a phase of a revolution that succeeds the excesses and anarchic chaos of the previous stage of the revolution. In its general and popular usage, the term refers to the accession of a board of executives that succeeds the violence, political agitation and social disorder of the initial phases of the revolution. It is a reactionary movement to the excesses of the canaille and the outbursts of ochlocracy. In its specific definition, Thermidor refers to the reactionary movement that succeeded the Jacobin Terror and the putrid excesses of the revolutionary rabble (The canaille). After the abolition of the constitutional monarchy under Louis XVI, the ebullience and fervor of the revolutionaries transmogrified into bloodshed, anarchic chaos and the dissolution of restrained law. The rule of the Parisian hoi-polloi was imposed by the leading figures of the urban proletariat. The butcheries, coercion and rapine of the Jacobin Terror were intended to uphold the unsullied image of the Revolution and safeguard the dominion of the goddess Reason. During this phase of the French Revolution, the vulgar Parisian populace descended into a state of lawlessness, immorality and disorder (Licentiousness) while the vituperation of the revolutionary demagogues prevailed over the restrained and moderate passions of rational intellects. The Thermidor was a reactionary movement to the excesses of the Jacobin Terror and the odious and vile crimes committed by the Jacobins. The triumph of Thermidor resulted in the demise of the Jacobin demagogue and crazed agitator Maximilien Robespierre. The Thermidorian reactionary movement established the French Directory which lasted from 1795-1799 CE. The Directory consisted of an executive board of five directors and a legislative board divided into two distinct assemblies: the Council of Ancients (250 participants) and the Council of 500 (500 participants). The French Directory was a constitutional medium between the political antipodes of the ossified autocracy of the Bourbons and the excesses, disorders and anarchic chaos of the Jacobin Terror. In the general usage of the term, Thermidor refers to a reactionary movement that seeks to undermine the actions undertaken during an outburst of revolutionary activity. In the example of the French Revolution, the period of Thermidor was a continuation or succeeding period of the Revolution. Napoleon's usurpation on the Eighteenth Brumaire (1799) resulted in the dissolution of the French Directory and the abrogation of the constitution of the Republic. The Consulate is divided into three periods: (a) the Provisional Consulate in which power was equally assumed between the three Citizen-Consuls Napoleon Bonaparte, Emmanuel Sieyes and Roger Ducos, (b) the Decentennial Consulate in which executive power was restricted to the individual bearing the appellation of First/Premier Consul (Napoleon Bonaparte) while the two remaining Citizen-Consuls were reduced to an advisory capacity (Jean-Jacques-Regis de Cambaceres and Charles-Francois Lebrun), and (c) the Perpetual Consulate. During the period of the Provisional Consulate, executive power was equally distributed among the triumvirate of Citizen-Consuls. However, during the two succeeding periods of the Decentennial Consulate and the Perpetual Consulate, the authority shared among the triumvirate of Citizen-Consuls was asymmetrical. The French Consulate existed until the proclamation of the First French Empire in 1804 CE.

(Favorite Political Figure in Occidental History):

The Roman Principate maintained the veneer of the republican tradition with its assortment of consuls, praetors, aediles and quaestors. However, the Principate of Augustus Caesar firmly established monarchical sovereignty which was buttressed by the traditional authority of the oligarchy. Immediately after the naval engagement of Actium (31 BCE), the Roman Republic was in a fragmented condition. The strength of the Roman state was undermined by its fissiparous politics and ceaseless social dissensions. The establishment of the Roman Principate was the greatest political achievement that any human being ever wrought. The achievements of Alexandros III Megas, of Gaius Julius Caesar, of Justinian I the Great, of Charlemagne, of Napoleon, are not worthy of a comparison to the foundation of the Principate. Augustus Caesar held sway over a dominion that stretched from the Cantabrian Sea (Atlantic Ocean) to the Euphrates River. To the north, the empire was hemmed by the forests of Germania and the bleak steppes of the Scythians while to the south it extended to the impenetrable African desert and the dreary wastes of Arabia. The empire embraced every conceivable variety in race and culture, from the rough barbarians of Gaul to the refined voluptuary of the highly developed cities of the Hellenistic East.

[Khalee]

ummm, I think.... for the shortened version of Conrad's post.... see mine

~

[MrHawk]

Ok, so Im gonna stay on topic here:

Julius Caesar!

simply cus he came, saw and won (conquered. whatever floats your boat)

This...win...

[teatotal]

Ok well I will debate French rulers. I believe that Napoleon was the greatest ruler out of the three for many reasons. As for Louis XIV was the worst ruler in the history of France he ran not caring about his people which resulted in the national congress to revolt and have Louis XIV beheaded twice during the French Revo. Napoleon on the other hand was one of the greatest generals of all time he revolutionized warfare with flanking tactics and had the greatest army the world had ever seen he also after being exiled used his wits to get off the island and took reign of France which in turn gained him a 600k troop army which he killed in Russia but really all he did as a ruler in France changed war and all of the world and caused what we now know as central America because his overthrow gave America the Louisiana purchase and showed all the Caribbean islands that they could be free and this made the world the place it is today with out napoleon I believe war and economy in general would be much different and maybe 100 years behind where it is today. That is just my piece on this subject.

think youre talking about the wrong louis and decapitated twice ...total bummer i bet that ruined his weekend

[Abdiel]

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


Conrad is here. o.o

Define "western." If we're going by geography, any leader of the Huns should count because they made incursions into central Europe. Does Russia count?

My vote is for Henry II of England because he was a top notch administrator and often the kings with the most far-reaching legacy are not the conquerors, but the ones who set up the infrastructure for the kingdom's endurance.

[Alzar]

think youre talking about the wrong louis and decapitated twice ...total bummer i bet that ruined his weekend

Thank you for correcting me i was acually talking about Louis XVI and yeah decapitated twice due to his neck being so thick it didnt cut through the whole time on the guillotine.

[SickbyDefinition]

Define "western." If we're going by geography, any leader of the Huns should count because they made incursions into central Europe. Does Russia count?

My vote is for Henry II of England because he was a top notch administrator and often the kings with the most far-reaching legacy are not the conquerors, but the ones who set up the infrastructure for the kingdom's endurance.

What the OP clarified as western. Meaning, Western state rules, states such as France, Rome, etc. Not Eastern or Asian leaders. Napoleon invaded Prussia and other states, but is he considered eastern european? No. He is considered a Western Ruler. Henry II is western.

[MrHyde]

Russia counts as Western... simply because all political decisions were made in the western side of things as well as the most important cities....

and Im going for Huns as Asian more than European.