|
|
|
|
#1
04-05-2012
|
||||
|
||||
The Greatest Leader in History?
Quote:
So Ocean put Qin Shi Huang (I believe) whom claimed to have been the first unifier of China. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang And Augustus Caesar the man whom changed the dynasty of European/Western/World history forever by turning Rome from a Republic into an Empire and can be seen as not only the founder of Rome, but also the one whom clearly inspired the later British Empire as the British were truly the sons and daughters of Rome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus Chinese Rulers I would also put forward Liu Bang, whom founded the Han dynasty, which is by far the most influnical and successful of China Empires, as well as the one most Chinese people will associate themselves with:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Gaozu_of_Han I would also put forward my personal favourite (if that is the right word) of Chinese Leaders Zhu Yuanzhang. Sure he was a bit of a bastard, but the man was one of the few people in History whom could truly in his lifetime raise from Peasant to Emperor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hongwu_Emperor English/British Rulers Elizabeth I of England has to be in there, because not only did she take a country which was actually very unstable and broke, due to the extremities of her vainglorious father and insanities of her sister, and make it into a superpower which would later become the most powerful Empire on the planet and possibly the 'greatest' in history, but she did this as a woman in a time when that was a big thing. She joins a long list of Strong female leaders throughout British history, dating back to Boudica. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I_of_England David Lloyd George is probably a lesser known character in History, but possibly he one of the people whom I consider a personal 'hero' to use a trite American term. Though best known for the Doria act and being the Prime Minster of Britain at the time of WW1, his true legacy is felt in his foundation of the Liberal Reforms of 1911-14, where he tried to overcome his own personal history as a poor son of a coal mining town (notice how I love the rags to riches thing haha) and Britain's homeland failings as a nation of the uneducated and improvaished. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lloyd_George Winston Churchill, if George is the forgotten leader of WW1, then Winston is probably Britain's most notorious leader, a man whom is loved as he is controversial. His acts during and especially before WW2 have lasting effects to this day, both a Charismatic leader and cunning git, he was truly the Politician a country would need during world times, being able to both unite nations and make questionable choices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill Clement Attlee, again another mostly forgotten hero of the modern British age; but if Churchill was your Warlord, then Attlee was the man needed for peace. Now most know my feelings in regards to Labour Governments on the whole, but Attlee's actions cannot be forgotten as his effects not only revolutionised Britain, but the world. The world as we now see it (both for better and worse) is attestable to this man (among others of course) with him setting down the modern Welfare state and NHS, as well as overseeing the start of decolonisation and the foundation of NATO/UN. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Attlee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Attlee There are many others, but these are the ones I can think of for now, does anyone else have their own world leaders whom they think should be placed here. (Trolls like Rebbie and Titan feck off) (I do not apologise for using Wiki, because it easy and most can understand it's information without getting bogged down in controvertible history.) 
|
|
#2
04-06-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'm in agreement, with Fared, on Winston Churchill.
If an Modern American President can model themselves after him, instead of Reagan or FDR, the country would be much better off. I can't think of the President's Name off the top of my head. But there was one President, who was elected to office, did absolutely NOTHING in his 4 year term, and the country didn't suffer for it. Why can't more Presidents be like him.
|
|
#3
04-06-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
American Presidents... Lincoln and Washington.
|
|
#4
04-06-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Here is the thing, you have to attempt to define what "Greatest" actually is.
Sure, you could claim the leaders listed by Fared are great, but even that is ridiculous considering they are at best failures at some points of their career and at worst war criminals going against the basic rights of humanity. Case in point: Elizabeth I. Why is she even up there? She wasn't a great leader at all, and it was under her reign that the Lordship system in Ireland essentially collapsed into a nationwide war which drained Britain's economy and military for years to come. In fact, at the end, England was forced to give full amnesty to the rebels and returned their estates as they could not continue a war, England was essentially bankrupt at the end of the war. Aside from her failures of keeping the peace in an area of her Empire, she was the ruler to introduce harsh punishments for Catholics. Yes, Recusancy was a terrible thing indeed, punishing those who did not obey the Protestant religion, and while this was only a mere humanitarian problem in England where most of the population was already Protestant (But still, religious persecution seems like a terrible thing), but in Ireland it was even worse as the laws against Catholics were trying to be enforced... in a country of Catholics. Considering Hugh O'Neill's many speechs during the rebellion claiming they must reclaim the country for Catholicism, this may have been a mistake on Elizabeth's part... No, I do not think she should be up there at all considering England was bankrupt by the end of her reign as Queen. I have similar problems with other choices, such as David Lloyd Goerge, and Churchill, but since I consider them at least good leaders, I won't go on a rant. But I wouldn't consider any of them the greatest leader in history.
|
|
#5
04-06-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It is clear that me and gcar have very different views of great, but that is part of the point. In the end, from what I can tell, you just wanted to rant against an English ruler, which would be fair enough if you were doing that for the conversations sake, but the fact you don't bring any of your own opinions (failing to bring up any rulers or definition of greatness for yourself) to the table undermines this. Now I will defend the certain Queen a bit later when have time. (Notice I don't conisder her father a great ruler despite him being very respected.) Finally I think you should become an Irish newspaper reporter; not sure why.  [ that was just a friendly joke ]
|
|
#6
04-06-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
*looks at thread*
*Goes to play Civ V* *Comes back* How about Hiawatha of the Iroqouis Indians? Guy brought together 5 tribes with no written language, held off against the British and French by playing them against one another and even the Americans for quite some time. Plus their treaty from what I've gathered has been the foundation for many constitutions.
|
|
#7
04-06-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I was merely refuting your claims that Elizabeth can be considered the "greatest" with a perfectly valid reason - she failed miserably in the Nine Years War. TO be honest, I think claiming I wanted to rant against an English ruler is unfair considering if I wanted to rant against an English ruler for any reason, I would bring up the bad points of Churchill (Including his part in the failed capture of the Dardanelle Straights in World War I) or Lloyd George (Who had horrible plans/luck in Ireland during 1914 with Home Rule, the aftermath of 1916 and his reaction to the 1918 general election). You claim my refuting of Elizabeth is merely me wishing to rant against an English Leader, but you brought it up as a candidate for Greatest Leader - Of course I am going to refute it if she had the horrible luck to front the Nine Years War which devestated England's economy. If anything, that has everything to do with the conversation as I thought the point of this thread was to find the Greatest Leader - it would be a sad world if we can't even disagree (Especially to the point where valid negative points are disregarded) And yes, I did not suggest my own leaders, because I know that there is no "Greatest" leader. Every single leader I know was a miserable failure at some point which is always a mark against them. Equally, if you define greatest in what they were trying to achieve, so many leaders can be considered "The Greatest" ,destroying the point of greatest. If you really want me to throw out some leaders which were quite good... Abraham Lincoln for his part in the Civil War. I claim he is great for the sole reason that he set out to achieve what he wanted to achieve - keeping the State together, and he did it rather efficiently. I am aware of his problems, as while he was a rather effective leader himself, encouraging confidence, and introducing new laws and tactics which aided the North - he was a terrible at choosing others to help run the campaign. I remember one of his military generals almost dragged Kentucky into the war after declaring an Emancipation Proclamation of his own in the neutral state, before the right time, causing them to panic and Lincoln had to defuse the situation by getting rid of the general. Despite going against the Constitution, and having bad luck at choosing his advisors, I would rank him up there. Equally, I would choose Michael Collins as a man who can be considered great. While not my favourite Irish leader (Patrick Pearse or James Connolly famous of 1916 would get that award), I have to admit that he is the most efficient and did essentially achieve what he was trying to. Elected as part of the first Dáil in 1918, he was brutally efficient in the years to come. Despite being a wanted man on the run, he kept finances perfectly as Minister for Finance, demanding each minister keep a track of money and income. Equally, while Cathal Brugha was the Minister for Defence, Collins was the man who organised the military (Most of the defeats of the Irish military of the era came from decisions of deValera and Brugha who felt Guerrilla tactics were uncalled for). Under Collins, the IRA was quite efficient, despite being quite immoral (The Twelve Apostles, the top assassins of Collins were seen as vicious as they killed in front of families sometimes, and also as the targets were going to Mass) His role in signing the Government of Ireland Act 1921 is also very important, considering the most accomplished Irish Diplomat, deValera, refused to attend, sending Collins instead (Some would argue deValera knew he could not get full independence after the Government of Ireland Act 1920 which created Northern Ireland, and thus needed a scapegoat), and he was willing to do whatever it took to gain independence (Commenting to Lloyd George after he signed it "I have signed my own death warrant", knowing it would lead to a split in the party and thus his own death). And I hate say this as Fared, but Lloyd George. While I have said he is not the greatest, he certainly is great. I have already pointed out the failures in terms of how he dealt with the Irish crisis, one can understand why he made such mistakes considering he was quite busy at the time, but I digress, let us start at the beginning. Lloyd George is quite an important figure as a wartime leader, but also as a Minister. Before the war, and during the early years, he - alongside Asquith, the Prime Minister of the time, and Churchill - introduced various reforms. The Peoples' Budget was the result, which was to pay for social welfare reforms, and new Battleships. While controversial, I view it as a step forward as it was the beginning of the Modern British State welfare. Equally, his wartime leadership is quite essential in the era. Becoming Prime Minister in 1916 led to a huge turn around for England in the War. Asquith's policies seemed to be failing miserably, and his wartime strategy was mildly inefficient at best, but as Lloyd George came to power, strategies changed. THe War Policy Committee helped more efficient policies come into effect, and the war seemed to go more favourably. Even after the war, he seemed to be good as he was the voice of reason, wishing for economic and political restraints on Germany for the war, but didn't go as far as the French who essentially wanted Germany destroyed (Versailles had more policies from the French sadly). FInally, Lloyd George is the politician who introduced Women's Suffrage in Britain (And Ireland) which is very important. I'd have to agree in saying he did more good than bad during his reign, despite the problems he faced in Ireland.
|
|
#8
04-06-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Teddy Roosevelt is the correct answer. He wins just by virtue of being able to take any of the other leaders in a fist fight. This guy had more man moxie on tap than any other president in US history and our leaders used to have some serious balls. Roosevelt took a bullet during a speech and kept right on going. Look at him ride a moose like a boss.
 Do you know how dangerous a moose is? They can kick holes in your chest cavity before you can finish shitting your pants. And look at this guy making a moose his bitch. How could you not follow a man that badass? Roosevelt laughs at your feeble English leaders.  Roosevelt's Ghost 2012
|
|
#9
04-06-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well, we already know my answer don't we?
Also, usually the people I find to be the best leaders, are quite often horrid in their personalities and personal lives.
|
|
#10
04-06-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
And he was never once wounded despite basically being the frontlines of every important battle. What kind of badass sits on a white horse in the middle of a forest and doesn't take any bullets even though his clothes were filled with bullet holes? He's made of fate. Seriously. Quote:
The states were allowed to leave the union. Problem was gold. The south had a lot of important resources, and the north would need them or it'd likely collapse. I say that the real reason was greed, and the reason they presented to people, the facade, was "Ending slavery". There's usually a real reason and facade. It's rare that they're one and the same.
|
|
#11
04-06-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Also Jesus beats all your flimsy leaders.
|
|
#13
04-06-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Probably one of my Favourite Winston Churchill Stories was the one involving Him and Lady Aster, in which the ever famous dialog was given.
Lady Aster to Winston Churchill: "Sir, If you were my Husband, I'd give you poison." Winston Churchill in response to Lady Aster: "Madame, if you were my wife, I'd drink it." Winnie was the best Troll England ever produced.
|
|
#14
04-06-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#15
04-06-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
-The reason I did not bring up a defence was that what I was going to say needed to be said with tact, so as to keep this friendly and I lacked the time to do that. Fundamentally I am going to be saying I think in the long run, her plan in Ireland was a stunning success. She wanted to destroy the Irish way of life through 'slow' recolonisation and that is what she did, laying down the foundation for several hundred years of continuing English rule there and marking the blue print for how the rest of British colonisation would be conducted, thus making her and her advisers the masterminds behind the success of the British Empire. Sure her ambitions did not truly come into fruition until long after her death, but without her groundworks and her original blueprints of colonisation through industry and cultural control, there would have been no Empire (for better or for worse, that in my eyes makes her a great ruler...note I use the word great, not noble or enlightened or even good.) PS Note also that I am not calling her the sole cause of the Empire, but that she was the one whom started it and as for the bankruptcy, that is a twist of History. Nope, the royal family was bankrupt, but industry, trade and pirating (another thing which would later become a keystone in the British Empires foundations) in Britain were growing quite nicely and the only reason Britain could be considered bankrupt is because: 1=Everytime it kept trying to make up colonies in the America's, they kept failing to find gold, which meant the gold rich Spanish and French kept undermining their economy with help of the Church. 2=Britain was bankrupt throughout its whole modern history on your standards. As for Churchill, I agree with what you put, because I don't consider him a great peacetime leader, but I do consider him a good wartime leader and a good politician. As for Lloyd, again agree with what you put, but think the problem with the Ireland issues at the time were simply that Lloyd George and the Liberals believed in decolonisation, but the Conservatives and by extension army, didn't. However with WW1 coming up Lloyd had to choose between looking weak in Ireland and looking weak to Germany with full army mutiny on his hands. He choose the former for clear reasons and in my opinion, the Irish did not help the issue; while their disgruntlement is for justified reasons, having been promised liberation, only too see it removed at the last moment, George tried his hardest to get them accept a delay in negioations, to give him time to deal with WW1 and his own internal problems, but they refused. However what happened next in Ireland is completely undefendable and the British army deserves the hate it received and how any men could think tying women to horses and having them dragged through the streets would do anything good is beyond me. (Just one example of the clearly indefendable brutety.) However again, I blame the British Army for this, not Lloyd George, though he is not blameless for letting it happen, I just cannot see him being the one to start.
|
|
#16
04-06-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
Okay... I'll throw Ghengis Khan out there then. United Mongols, conquered like a madman only to fall short by illness.
|
|
#17
04-07-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
^
Lol. Like Alexander III. (the great). But okay, I don't consider Alexander as a great person. Mhm, it's easier for me to say who wasn't great than to say who actually was. However, since that discussion is really Britain-centric I throw Richelieu in the round. He wasn't a king/emperor or president, but he was a real leader of his nation. It's still hart to say he was great, because his policy wasn't that great judged on human rights ans morals. But I assume that this discussion isn't about morals, so he stands as a "great" personality of his time. Why do I consider him being "great"... He was the first minister of King Louis XIII. and a great statesman, who he transformed France into a strong, centralized state. However, his policy was very calculating. On the one hand he fought against the Huguenots in bloody/cruel battles, but on the other hand he had no problem to make alliances with Protestant rulers in the Thirty Years' War to finally check the power of the Austro-Spanish Habsburg dynasty, with the result to ensure French dominance in central Europe. He lay the foundation for the absolute monarchy in France. (And he supported the arts and respected the king's authority) la source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu
|
|
#20
04-16-2012
|
||||
|
||||
|
We all do, we all do...
|
 |
|
|
