Hi everyone,
Who does everyone think is the greatest Leader/Ruler of all time?
Julius Caesar? Alexander the Great? King Henry V? King Henry VIII? Elizabeth I? Cleopatra VII of Egypt?
Or someone else altogether?

For me, I'm afraid, expressions like "great leader" or "glorious leader" are just oxymorons.

Like Jonathan Swift's King of Brobdingnag, I believe that "whoever could make two ears of corn or two blades of grass to grow upon a spot of ground where only one grew before would deserve better of mankind, and do more essential service to his country, than the whole race of politicians put together".

If I really had to pick out the least bad of history's rulers, I'd probably go for George Washington.

Interesting, as Tom suggested there are probably better services suited for a great woman or man than becoming a leader or politician. For the most part, leaders have been thrust into their positions via fate, luck or other extenuating circumstances. With that being said, I do believe that capable individuals have stepped into the leadership role quite adequately in the annals of history. It's very difficult to select the greatest, however, because with each leader you must weigh the good with the bad...and even making those sorts of determinations (i.e. which actions were 'good' and which 'bad') is very difficult. For example, I would argue that Mao Zedong was a 'great' leader in China up until 1957, when his jealousies and weaknesses helped bring about a long string of failures and many deaths in China. Irregardless of these failures, Mao did bring about the unification of China and the overthrow of the dominant local elite in the Chinese countryside, making him worthy of some consideration. Yet the fact that 20-40 million people died between 1957-1976 either fully or in part as a result of Mao's policy precludes his admission onto a 'great leaders' list.

With that in mind, I've decided to take a stab at it...be advised that my list is partial...I haven't studied most world leaders closely enough to have made any sort of realistic determination as to who was best.

Elizabeth I
George Washington
Emperors Kangxi and Yongzheng of the Qing (Manchu)
Asoka
Simon Bolivar
Solon (of Athens)
Kemal Ataturk and Lee Kwan Yew (for similar reasons)
King Rama IV (of Thailand)
Augustus

I guess that's more than enough!

Winston Churchill is the first name that comes to mind. The incredible strength it took to keep Britain strong in the face of Hitler’s forces taking over Europe and the terrible toll of death and destruction caused by the Battle of Britain was extraordinary. The British war effort, under his leadership was amazing. In addition, from the beginning of WWII, Churchill knew that he had to involve the US in the war effort and worked diligently to obtain that objective. Churchill had many personal flaws, but as a leader, I think he was superb.

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Vikan ]

Napoleon Bonaparte is my nomination. Truly a born leader. Unfortunately destroyed by ambition, it was his ambition that made him such a great leader.

Terry

It's really easy to become cynical-especially about political leaders, isn't it? But, if I understand the topic questiion, you asking about men or women who maximized their personal and political power to be remembered for the good they did and what they accomplished--in the long run? Frankly, I have very few heroes. But I can see that Gandhi was a great leader, Martin Luther King, Jr.--wasn't he a great leader? Or Nelson Mandella? All these and countless more were-men and women-were great leaders. I certainly do not think your question is in any fashion moronish. It's very valid. I'm just afraid there are not many elected, appointed, or crowned Heads-of-State I really think that much of in history.

The ORIGINAL George W-the one with the cherry tree!

I am a history buff myself and in the hall of great leaders I would put Themistocles at the top. He is a virtual unknown I have found but deserves much attention. This statesman admiral lead a rag tag Athenian fleet against the massive Persian fleet at Salamis and won. This battle wich Themistocles had to fight simply to get support to fight it was the turning point in the war against the persians. Had he not won greece would have been wiped out and with it the emerging western culture. So on my list Themistocles is at the top.

Themistocles was a briliant commander and an Athenian political leader. He began his political career after the battle of Marathon and the retrait of the Persians. He believed that the Persians would return and proposed to build a strong fleet to meet them at the sea. This was opposed by Aristides, the leader of Athens. Themistocles' naval stragedy prevailed and Aristides was banished. When the Persians returned they defeated the Spartans at Thermopylae (Leonidas and the 300 Spartans, 100 Thespies) and occupied Athens. Themistocles had moved Athenians th the island of Salamis where he engaged and destroyed the Persian fleet. Themistocles had made Athens a great power but the people believed that he had accepted bribes, and in 471 BC he was banished from the city. Each country has its leaders. Most of them are unknown to others. Greece has many to mention as well: Pericles, Alcibiades, Leonidas, Peisistratos and of course Alexander the Great. Politicians or generals, each one has his own page in the book of honor. I'm impressed you know Themistocles FellAir, he is not very well known indeed.

The moment someone talks about the greatest (except in simple contexts) I find all kinds of internal alarm bells going off. For a start, it's customary in Britain to distinguish between peace-time and war-time leaders, but obviously people led in times of peace *and* war ... It seems to me that questions like this are little more than an appeal to name a purely personal hero.

Things are complicated no end by the vast differences across countries, cultures and epochs, too. Couldn't one settle for a list of good leaders, though even that would be problematical? In Britain, it's common to regard Clement Attlee and Sir Robert Peel as outstanding peace-time Prime Ministers and obviously Churchill as the best war-time Prime Minister. One of the most remarkable achievements of Robert Peel was removing the death penalty from over one hundred crimes while Home Secretary, 1824-30. One of his most outstanding qualities was his ability to admit publicly that he'd been wrong and then try to do something about it, too..

In the case of America, surely FDR would rank high among those with a claim to having been a good leader, both in peace and war.

Of course, it depends a bit on what one understands by greatness, too. If one's looking for heroism, international standing rather than reform at home then one's going to choose quite differently ...

I too find the question a bit restrictive. But in America we do have a tendency towards the superlative!
But perhaps in my reflections on who makes a good leader, be it a boss or a politician, I think I've become a bit more interested in who actually manages to do their job without compromising their personal beliefs and values.
I might surprise you but I found that Jimmy Carter was actually one of the best presidents America had in terms of morals and intelligence and integrity. How many people could hold up as well as he did, while still maintaining the level of honesty I feel he kept? Plus he was very modest about himself. What a rare quality in politics!
Unfortunately it was almost his destruction as I personally feel that the person who does the job well must make more compromises in his morals etc in order to get the job done.
I saw him speak after his presidency and he is amazingly articulate and compassionate.
I remember all the jokes we heard about his accent, and his confessions of having lusted in his soul after another woman, and yet, in the long run, he attempted the impossible, performing a task that might just not have been manageable while keeping his integrity intact.
What I liked about Carter and other leaders, was that he never lost his human qualities.

I nominate Charles De Gaulle

thejazzkickazz,

Interesting list. What is the reasoning behind it?

Regards,

Tielhard

I nominate Alexander the Great. It isn't every 20 year old that takes over half the world in a few months!

I'd agree with Alexander the Great, but would also nominate Winston Churchill. Not a leader, but he was a leader of men.

What are the opinions on Hitler as one of the great leaders? While he was obviously a completely irrational madman, he installed enough hate and purpose to rally a nation to conquer europe. His military tactics were superb before the Russian Invasion, and Germany came oh so close to achieving their supremecy goals.

My vote for greatest political leader is:

Louis XIV, King of France and Navarre - Sure, he was the 'Sun King', and brought France to the apex of power and glory. But there was a method to his madness. He was vain and brought ostentation and luxury to new levels. But he was also a political genius, and history rarely mentions this aspect. To this day, Versailles is regarded as a monument to his vast ego. But it's much more than that. When he was a child, the French monarchy was still situated in Paris, in the Louvre. At age eight, he survived the Fronde, a peasant uprising (and precursor to the French Revolution) that frightened him badly. When he became King, he expanded his father's former hunting lodge at Versailles, 14 miles from Paris, and also 14 miles from the potential dangers from the peasants of Paris.

A second threat to the monarchy was the aristocracy, the source of most of the money and power. Louis induced the aristicrats, throught he offering of royal titles such as prince, duc, compte, princesse, etc., to relocate to Versailles to live; this was their only hope for social/political advancement. The cost of living at Versailles was exhorbitant; this slowly depleted most of the aristocrat's wealth. At one point, over 5000 aristocrats were living at Versailles. These aristocrats became almost peasants, relying on loans from the crown for survival. Louis had them just where he wanted them...totally dependent on him.

He ingeniously solved both of the major threats to his vanity, and his reign.

Oh, Bertho! Are you being serious about Hitler as a 'great leader'? Just what sort of leader is that leads a country to the most devastating defeat in its history, commits genocide in the name of cranky ideology and leaves the reputation of his (adopted) country tarnished for all time? One obvious answer is surely: a prize fool, or in the kinder words of many London schoolkids in 1940s and 1950s, 'Heil Hitler, ya, ya, ya/Vot a funny little men you are!'.

Why do we always have to look to the past.

Nelson Mandela, 25 years in prison, peace, anti-apartheid, environmentalist, legend.

Nice one, Russ.

I can see where Bertho is coming from by saying Hitler. This is a man who glavanised a whole country into going into a world war for his ideas. We know that is was all wong and very tragic but a man that can make that many people do his bidding must have some leadership qualities ... a pity that he didn't use them for 'good'.

Has anyone mentioned Hannibal? it would have to be some great leader and very inspiring for me to follow him, and elephants over a mountain range. (i don't know much about Hannibal, wish I listened in Ancient history, but he does sound like someone who at least should be mentioned here)

Winston Churchill, definitely a man for the moment. I always feel we owe him lots.

Hi Russ. Yes, Nelson Mandela is an excellent nominee.

Copago, I think there's a slight problem with notions of galvanizing a whole country for war. In 1914, there was an outburst of frenetic 'war fever' in many European countries that far exceeded anything in WW2. Perhaps, to a large extent, peoples galvanize themselves? Anyway, I'm left wondering ... Did the Germans 'galvanize' in the late 1930s and WW2 for Hitler's *ideas*, or for other, simpler reasons? (Yes, I know I'm being awkward, but I think these questions are worth asking).

When the question in this thread was first asked, I assumed that the concept 'greatest leader' or 'great leader' included a moral dimension, a view implicit for example in Jazz's list and his discussion of Mao. Without a moral dimension, one might start including a few gang leaders, too. Nazi aggression was a criminal act ... Moreover, even Hitler's successes were very short lived and within six years he had led Germany to *defeat* and to disgrace with few parallels. People with any doubts might find it useful to ask Germans if they thank Hitler for that! I'd expect a 'great leader' to be remembered - in the long term - with affection by those he/she led and their descendants.

In reply to:

---

'greatest leader' or 'great leader' included a moral dimension,

---

Point taken, and obviously he wouldn't fit in at all. But as far as great also means sort of 'more than ordinary' ('great pain' for example) Hitler would fit into that category, just my opinion. I don't know enough about the time to debate it, and perhaps the people were looking for a leader to have the views that they wanted to 'fight' for but still not just anyone would have been able to do what he did. Please don't think that in any way I agree or condone what Hitler was about. Quite the very opposite.

Copago:) Rest assured that I never thought you or Bertho were condoning Hitler. There are various interpretations of Hitler as a person - none of them entirely satisfactory.

One of these views in fact stresses his alleged ordinariness.
(This is the main line taken for example by Hermann Glaser).This view dovetails neatly with interpretations of him as a failure and a figure of fun. I'm not just thinking of "The Great Dictator" and WW2 cartoons. A mere five years before coming to power he was widely perceived in Germany itself as an anti-social political outsider and he was a figure of fun in the late 1920s. One of the most striking things about his political *ideas* is the lack of any originality, for example.

However, this attempt to stress Hitler's ordinariness *may* be in part an inappropriate extention of the concept of the 'banality of evil' to Hitler himself.

On the whole, those who view of Hitler as 'great' disregard the 'endgames' and indeed most of what happened after 1939.

There are other, more sophisticated views - for example, that he was a clapped out old failure (until shortly before his rise to power) who in the very unusual circumstances of Germany in the 1930s happened to find his little niche.

The topic - and the 'banality of evil' really merit threads of their own.

Tielhard...thank you for the question. I'm sorry I hadn't responded before but I was out of town and hadn't noticed your post until just today!

Your question is a tough one, I would probably have to go through each of my choices one by one to give a proper estimation as to why I selected them. Picking 'great' leaders is a difficult task, as there is virtually always a 'dark side' to every leader who has ever ruled for a substantial period of time. For example, Augustus was often ruthless with his policies and tended to allay the masses by using barbaric gladiatorial specticals. However, I tried to ignore somewhat the negatives, just so long as they weren't overwhelming (as in the case of Mao, Hitler or even Napoleon) and come up with a list that included men and women who seemed to have a galvanizing vision for their people. The people on my list tended to be ones who led their countries into a new frontier politically, religiously or philosophically, and did it with much success and with a minimum of ideology. An example here would be Asoka, who espoused the tenets of Buddhism as a way of countering the onerous effects of the caste system on the people of India. Also, I wanted to choose individuals whose actions have led to relative long-term success, for example George Washington, whose leadership helped representative democracy flourish in the United States. Of course several of my choices were absolutists, like the two Chinese emperors mentioned, so ideal goals such as the one just mentioned were probably impossible, but even in their case (Kangxi and Yongzheng) measures were taken to allay the population, such as simplifying the tax code and more evenly distributing the tax burden. I think Ataturk and Lee are two examples of modern 'enlightened despots' who were able to combine all of the qualities mentioned above in interesting and innovative ways, especially considering the historical and cultural contexts from which they emerged.

There's probably more I could say about this topic but I don't want to bore folks with excess verbiage. I would be happy to discuss individual points, or better yet, debate individual leaders on their positive and negative qualities. Did anyone jump out at you on my list that particularly interested you, Tielhard?

J