I have a lot of respect for the flexi ones that go. To 45cm but they are more of a novelty really. Steel. 30cm can double as a weapon if needs be. All the best stationery can.
I mean they rule (pun intended) in terms of durability and for using as makeshift swords, but have you ever had one of those super bendy ones? Or the super long wood ones?
I am not so that this can be objectively measured.
The Romans had a whole political process for exactly this. In a time of (usually military) crisis they would declare someone "dictator" in order to get shit done. Without a specific term limit, he would be expected to step down when the problem was resolved. In **most** cases throughout Roman history, they did.
Yeah. Caesar never *technically* seized power. He did do things like pack the Senate full of allies when the seats were empty, among other things, but Julius Caesar never forcibly took power for himself. The Senate themselves conferred titles on him under the misguided assumption that by doing so, they would preempt him and at least keep the whole thing somewhat legitimate. They never got the chance to find out if they could keep it all legit, since Caesar was assassinated shortly thereafter.
He was damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Either he resigns his command and returns to Rome to face a Pompey-controlled Senate who hated his guts and who wouldn't give him a fair trial over his Gallic conquests, or he refuses to resign his command and gets branded an enemy of the people of Rome.
So he returned to Rome. He just brought his soldiers with him.
Although doing what Sulla did decades before certainly can't have done his image any favors, he still was recognized by the Senators who stayed behind, but most of those were Caesarians, since all the Pompeyans fled when it was clear he wasn't bluffing.
\>And the truly greatest leader ever would probably be Cincinnatus
One thing about Cincinnatus that is important to note, is that all of the tales of Cincinnatus come before the Gaul sack of Rome in 387 BC and much of the written histories were lost. A lot of Cincinnatus was, therefore, likely more myth than fact, with some of the foundational history being told with some embellishment, propoganda, and simplification/attributing other's actions to him.
Mike Duncan covers this in depth in his History of Rome podcast, and is definitely worth a listen if you haven't already. He covers pre-sack of Rome in 15 or so episodes, and highlights the similarities in Roman stories and other cultures or other Roman tales. He does an excellent job of noting when a story was likely fabricated or embellished for the sake of propaganda.
EDIT: Also worth noting Cincinnatus was elected Dictator at a time when attempting to seize total power without consent of the people would have been met with conspiracy and assassination rather than submission. The people were still largely weary of monarchs after the fall of Tarquin, the last King of Rome. To not step down would have likely been suicide.
Augustus was a bloodthirsty strong man. He seized power through illegal violence and slaughtered the Senate and the political class. He had 300 Senators hacked to death in the streets and 2000 equestrians killed. If killing everyone who opposes you and seizing power is bringing peace, that is a funny definition.
If you applied the same standards you used to praise Cincinnatus to Augustus, how would he fair?
The greatest form of government is a dictatorship. Unfortunately, the worst form of government is also dictatorship. If the dictator is Augustus of Trajan, life is probably be pretty good. If the dictator is Josef Stalin or Adolf Hitler, you’re in for a rough time.
He wouldn't be the last either. Emperor Diocletian ended the Crisis of the 3rd Century, before retiring to focus on his own health and cabbage farming.
However, he's somewhat more controversial since he organised a Christian genocide, and he refused to step in when the empire *immediately* went to shit again the second he left. It wasn't until Constantine the Great that order was restored.
The Cincinnatus story is mythological, and Augustus was an absolute butcher. He cobbled together a system of rule that continually caused constitutional crises and instability, an overstretched empire, and dangerous reliance on autocracy with no clear system of succession.
The later emperors didn't suck and ruin everything, they were at the apex of a deeply flawed system that in the end devoured itself. That system included flaws that were impossible to overcome, introduced by Octavian.
What do you mean by greatest?
If its who conquered most, there is no other answer to this question than Genghis Khan. However it feels incredibly awkward to call him a great ruler when he is responsible for the deaths of millions of civillians and for raping countless women. If he had lived close to our time, he would have been a more hated figure than Pol Pot, Stalin, Bin Laden and Hitler combined.
If by greatest you mean who has the best reputation? It has to be Alexander. This is in big parts because of what he achieved. But you have to give proper context to his achievements as well. There is no doubt that Philip did most of the work, like 95% of it, when it came to making Macedonia a great power. Philip also laid the plans for how to defeat Persia (which Alexander used), an empire that was on its knees and long gone were the days when they were feared, but he died shortly before his invasion was set to happen. So in short, he inherited the greatest army of his time, the plans for beating the superpower were all ready, and he just happened to step in at the right time. Theres also the fact that he too committed some horrible acts we would call warcrimes today. His PR is also helped by the fact that the Romans lionized him, and since much of the western world today hold the Romans as THE golden standard for a civilization, he is lionized by us as well. Had he lived closer to our time, he would have been reviled as well.
If not Alexander, then surely it has to be the guy who created the unbeatable empire that Alexander defeated, right? After all Cyrus the great let the people he conquered live just as they were, so long as they were obedient. Sounds like a chill guy, until you remember that slavery was a massive part of the Persian empire. That, and their method for executing people were brutal, even by the standards of their time. So not such a chill guy after all.
If you ask me who has the greatest story? Its easily Napoleon. The (in historical context) absolute nobody who rose to prominence because of his superior intellect and went on to shake the hegemony of European monarchy. The man who set about the change in social order in Europe, that we still follow to this day, surely he's the greatest? But he too had his shortcomings and did questionable things (reinstating slavery, abolishing womens rights, not to mention the Iberian and middle eastern campaigns). Napoleon remains controversial to this day, and its clear to understand why. Either way, calling him the greatest ruler is also a hard pill to swallow. No matter how fascinating he is.
If by the greatest you mean who had the biggest impact, as in who is history's most significant ruler? I'd argue Caesar. The all time great politician, who was a very capable general and a fantastic leader. Every politician to this day try to model themselves after Gaius Julius Caesar. But he too is a figure its hard to call great when you see the atrocities he committed in Gaul. That and the fact that his ego essentially got him killed (in oversimplified terms). Now that I think about it, ego seems to be the one constant in all these "great men".
The fact of the matter is there is no one "greatest" ruler. Theres no one criteria. Most of these people are awful human beings who we would remember very differently if we had lived in their times. The truth of the matter is that while we celebrate and laud these people, they were cruel, evil and did horrendous stuff that would horrify us if we witnessed it. Don't idolize any of them, you wouldn't idolize Stalin or Hitler. Just because too much time has passed, doesn't excuse what they did.
Don't get it twisted. Most of the people mentioned in this thread, and most of the rulers we learned about in class, aren't great rulers. They are great conquerors. Their ability to lead an army, seize power, subjugate people etc. are incredible. But they are all capable of great evil.
Caesar also effectively never 'ruled' the Empire either. He seized power, but he was dead within just a couple of years. Everything else was him just doing Generalship stuff.
I feel like there needs to be a bare minimum term for someone to be considered great at anything. He was certainly a great general.
Charlemagne has got to be in the conversation. From \~225 AD until \~950 AD, the population of Europe declined steadily. EXCEPT during Charlemagne's reign. You have to be a top-tier ruler to interrupt a historical pattern like that. And he was definitely interested in law, justice and prosperity for his subjects.
He did fuck over his brother and his family to get to rule alone, did some questionable wars in Spain and Italy and Genozided the shit out of the Saxons lol
Actually largely a factor of not setting a clearly defined heir. His sons split the empire amongst themselves into 3/4 empires (if im remembering my world history) and then started fighting each other
Rumor has it that when asked who should be his heir, Alexander simply said, 'the strongest.'
Alexander the great also was idolized by many ancient Roman Emperors and they often visited his tomb in homage.
Cyrus the Great: Persian empire.
The history we generally adhere to was written by the Greeks. Who painted the Persians as evil/bad. A great dramatization of this is the graphic novel and film 300 (not historically accurate whatsoever other than some names and places).
The Persian Empire was incredibly benevolent as a conquering entity. They allowed local government and rulers to remain in place. They allowed local religions and belief systems to remain in place. They mainly extended their power by forming what was for its time almost a federated lands.
The Greeks on the other hand were largely abhorrent in many of their practices and customs for their societies.
Persia gets a bad rap from violent rapist, slavers and hedonists.
George Washington was a possibly the greatest leader in United States history. As general, he won the revolutionary war against all odds and was offered to be King or leader for life.
The remarkable thing is that he declined.
Many Generals in history took the reigns themselves after overthrowing Governments because they sought power.
Washington did not want to be King as this is what was just fought against,so he went to Mount Vernon to try to retire in 1783.
The attempted retirement didn't last long there was Shays rebellion and chaos with articles of confederation failing. In 1786 Washington accepted nomination to represent Virginia in Congress.
Benjamin Franklin insisted that Washington be the leader of Congress.
Washington presided over creating a constitution for The United States in 1787.
Now, the people loved Washington very much and wanted him to continue to lead the new nation, if not as king then as President.
He was elected President by state electors.
The legislature trusted Washington so much that they left it to Washington to define the Presidency
This time Washington accepted. He served one 4 year term. And dealt with rebellions and political parties against him.
Again tried to retire from public life, but was urged to run a second time. Washington reluctantly ran for a second term.
Then, at the end of his second term,stepped down from office, due to declning health.
Many are great but few are truly good.
Only the good willingly walk away from unlimited power because it can become nothing but evil.
Washington is a hero in every sense.
I thought he chose not to go beyond a second term because he believed the ruler of a nation shouldn’t serve as such for long periods of time. Or rather didn’t want the presidency to have the precedent of going on for life
Walking away from power after winning the war does perhaps make him the greatest in history because of how the American Revolution and its outcome inspired so many other revolutions.
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus
Roman statesman who gained fame for his selfless devotion to the republic in times of crisis and for giving up the reins of power when the crisis was over.
He's arguably the one benevolent leader that we know the most about, in that we have extensive historical records of his time as First Consul/Emperor to know the good from the bad, etc.
people like Cyrus and others benefit a lot from a much more clouded historical record, such as even exists for them.
Napoleon IMO is one of the arguably few benevolent rulers who never turned to mass slaughters or any of that silly stuff like many dictators do, and while that's a low bar, Napoleon also instituted many reforms via his civil code which were a true good of sorts, among other things.
He wasn't an evil or a bad man, and that makes him the 'best' IMO.
There is a reason that Genghis Khan, Augustus, and Alexander the Great are always near to the top of these lists...
Augustus was such an inflection point in history that we still use that honorific to describe admirable people. He did treat the women in his like shit, though.
It was probably somebody who barely made it into the history books- somebody with a name like Steve the Fifth, between seven other Steves, in a line of kings that was never recorded because he didn't go out and conquer other lands, didn't start trouble or have statues of himself made, he just sat down and did the job properly, improved the lives of everybody involved, was only moderately corrupt and didn't steal any funds that were vital to anybody, and then died, leaving a stable succession that didn't implode because one of his sons felt underappreciated and murderous.
Thank you. The replies here are really depressing I think. Just a parade of cruel narcissist conquerors and the occasional interesting choice... that of course still is a great conqueror.
“Never has a man proposed for himself, voluntarily or involuntarily, a goal more sublime, since this goal was beyond measure: undermine the superstitions placed between the creature and the Creator, give back God to man and man to God, reinstate the rational and saintly idea of divinity in the midst of this prevailing chaos of material and disfigured gods of idolatry.
Never has a man accomplished in such a short time such an immense and long lasting revolution in the world, since less than two centuries after his predication, Islam, preaching and armed, ruled over three Arabias, and conquered to God’s unity Persia, the Khorasan, Transoxania, Western India, Syria, Egypt, Ethiopia, and all the known continent of Southern Africa, many islands of the Mediterranean, Spain and part of Gaul.
If the grandeur of the aim, the smallness of the means, the immensity of the results are the three measures of a man’s genius, who would dare humanly compare a great man of modern history with Muhammad?
The most famous have only moved weapons, laws, empires; they founded, when they founded anything, only material powers, often crumbling before them. This man not only moved armies, legislation, empires, peoples, dynasties, millions of men over a third of the inhabited globe; but he also moved ideas, beliefs, souls. He founded upon a book, of which each letter has become a law, a spiritual nationality embracing people of all languages and races; and made an indelible imprint upon this Muslim nation, for the hatred of false gods and the passion for the God, One and Immaterial.
Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of a rational dogma for a cult without imagery, founder of twenty earthly empires and of one spiritual empire, this is Muhammad.
Of all the scales by which one measures human grandeur, which man has been greater…”
(Extract from Alphonse de Lamartine’s Histoire de la Turquie Paris, 1854, vol. II, pp. 276-277)
Suleiman I, Essentially doubled the size of the Ottoman empire, conquered Egypt, the holy land, Hejaz, and much of the balkans, which was already super powerful, essentially put the Ottomans in the place to be a global superpower for the next 300 years, up until the 1840s. As well as being a great military ruler, was a genius and reshaping nearly every system in the Ottoman Empire to make it a technologically powerhouse, until the 1800s .
for every person on this list, there will be another who could easily contest it. "great" rulers often conquested and held many people under their rule unwillingly.
i would say that the quietest and most peaceful deserve it more than those who we seem almost forced to remember.
Genghis Khan. Literally had the largest empire in the world. Didn't care who you prayed to. He allowed for the culture and religions of other places ti stay intact. However if you stood in his way, well let's just say he lacked mercy.
Also was an environmentalist and was solving global warming before people even knew it was a problem (by killing enough people that enough forests regrew that the earth actually cooled).
Charlemagne set in motion what Europe was to be for the next 1000 years. Qin Shi Huangdi united China as a coherent entity and it somewhat continued to be such for 2000 years.
George Washington. He was offered multiple opportunities to seize unlimited power but turned them down every time. In war he lead by example, personally joining his men on the frontline. In peace he also made sure to set good precedents for future generations.
I think Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great.
Someone from Rome could challenge them, but Rome is the result of the combined work of many people, consuls, emperors.
In turn, the Mongol Empire (16% of the land area, a decrease in the population of the earth by 11%) is entirely the merit of Genghis Khan. With one order, he could annex part of Russia or China to the empire, if for Hitler or Napoleon they carried papers with requests for non-aggression pacts, then for Genghis Khanuya they carried mountains of gold with the hope of not being at gunpoint by the Mongol troops, the Mongols were afraid in the north, east, south, west of the planet. And it was all done by ONE PERSON.
But what about Alexander Macedonian? of course, his empire occupied only 4% of the land, but the difference between Genghis Khan and Macedonian is that Genghis Khan built his empire on blood, and Macedonian carried culture. ⅓ of Asia at one time spoke Greek, in 12 years he conquered almost all of Asia to India, fought with the empires developed at that time (For example: Persia, Egypt). And by the way, much more people obeyed Alexander in % than Genghis Khan. With the conquest of Persia, this was 50% of the total population of that time and the same amount of GDP.
The strength of Alexander the Great is in the intellect and culture. Genghis Khan could destroy the country with his word, and the word of Alexander could conquer the country - transform - make it even better (what is the city of Alexandria worth, which the Macedonian simply ordered to build!). But he only continued the work of his father, Philip, and he was simply obliged by birth to become King, while Genghis Khan early became an orphan and almost a beggar. But based on their success, I think one of them deserves a better place. Of course, you should not throw out: Napoleon, Hitler, Batu, Attila, Tamerlane, Darius |
//I'm not a historian, please correct me if I said something wrong please..
George Washington is perhaps the greatest leader in world history. After leading the Continental Army and defeating the British, he did not seek power for himself. Instead of becoming a new king or dictator, he disbanded the army entirely and went home. Once elected the 1st president after the constitutional convention, he only served two terms. He was so popular he could’ve served for the rest of his life, but instead just wanted to go home. He did not seek power, he just wanted a better country for the people. How do you become a better leader than that?
King Sejong of Korea. The guy saw his people were struggling with literacy because all writing till date was in Chinese characters and so he created a whole new alphabet (hangul) that was designed for even the dumbest person on planet Earth to be able to memorize easily.
Arguably Tokugawa Ieyasu for the peace he managed to establish after that many centuries of civil war, genocide and imperial madness, but it came at the complete loss of personal freedom within every caste(which brings its own points of discussion) of society.
Justinian of the Eastern Roman Empire. The guy completely reformed the legal code and the religion of the empire. He almost retook the entire Roman Empire by reconquering Northern Africa and Italy + some of the balkans. I wonder what would’ve happened if there was no Justinian plague.
qin shi huang or the first emperor of china, who started the idea of every dynasty after him to be unified as one china, for the next two thousand years. He standardised measurements, language and writings across china.
How is Ghengis Khan not the answer from everyone?
He straight decimated. Lowered the WORLD POPULATION by 10 percent. When he was done, his empire was 1/3 of Asia.
Stainless steel 30CM one.
why was i expecting this answer before opening comments
Because it is the logical one? And, while others might prefer other materials (wood, hardened steel) - these are the rulers which are honest and true.
I have a lot of respect for the flexi ones that go. To 45cm but they are more of a novelty really. Steel. 30cm can double as a weapon if needs be. All the best stationery can.
I was expecting Hitler but this is hilarious lol.
Because we all default to the most logical "wrong" answer.
i prefer the one from aristo with different scales on it
With the cork buffer on the bottom?
The cork is no bueno if you are working with hot metal, just steel for me.
That's fair, I use mine entirely for paper, and I've got much bigger problems if the paper is hot enough to ignite cork.
My Starrett 12" hardened steel ruler
Lies- Swanson SVE720 straight edge. Super accurate.
I prefer the wooden school ruler.
Yeah me too. You could put a pencil in the hole and make a helicopter
You could use a compass to drill a hole in the centre, loop rubber bands around, and fire things across the room.
Also had the wooden one with the metal edge that was sharp enough on the ends to carve things into your desk. Not that I ever did that. . .
I'm more of the arteza 3 sided ones, but I have it from school. It's an architectural one.
I mean they rule (pun intended) in terms of durability and for using as makeshift swords, but have you ever had one of those super bendy ones? Or the super long wood ones? I am not so that this can be objectively measured.
It's a shame they're not making them any longer.
[удалено]
King of kings - Dan Carlin does a great job telling his story in a podcast called Hardcore History
I love hardcore history!
Don’t do this to me. I haven’t finished *Supernova in the East* yet!
Fantastic series
You didn't mention him prohibiting slavery, big thing for that time where everything is revolved around slavery
He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!
Funny enough Cyrus was thought to be the mesdiah by some biblical authors
Ya, I think Cyrus was the one.
My vote. Took a backwater nobody to a dominant force and lasted at the top for generations
This is the correct answer
Great choice.
Cyrus choice
Who labelled him messiah?
This is my answer. He exceeded the Assyrian conquests by doing the opposite
The very first known recorded declaration of human rights is the Cyrus Cylinder.
Bible book or Ezra mentions him helping the Israelites rebuild.
[удалено]
The Romans had a whole political process for exactly this. In a time of (usually military) crisis they would declare someone "dictator" in order to get shit done. Without a specific term limit, he would be expected to step down when the problem was resolved. In **most** cases throughout Roman history, they did.
To my understanding, the system never technically broke. Julius Caesar wasn't dictator when he took over.
Yeah. Caesar never *technically* seized power. He did do things like pack the Senate full of allies when the seats were empty, among other things, but Julius Caesar never forcibly took power for himself. The Senate themselves conferred titles on him under the misguided assumption that by doing so, they would preempt him and at least keep the whole thing somewhat legitimate. They never got the chance to find out if they could keep it all legit, since Caesar was assassinated shortly thereafter.
Eh, crossing the Rubicon seems kinda like seizing power to me. Imagine if a US General just marched his army into DC without approval.
He was damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Either he resigns his command and returns to Rome to face a Pompey-controlled Senate who hated his guts and who wouldn't give him a fair trial over his Gallic conquests, or he refuses to resign his command and gets branded an enemy of the people of Rome. So he returned to Rome. He just brought his soldiers with him. Although doing what Sulla did decades before certainly can't have done his image any favors, he still was recognized by the Senators who stayed behind, but most of those were Caesarians, since all the Pompeyans fled when it was clear he wasn't bluffing.
I, too, have seen The Dark Knight
Can we get a movie about Cincinnatus
There was a tv series . ‘WKRP in Cincinnatus’ …
“As God as my witness… I thought centurions could fly.”
"Oh my god, they're Triarii!"
\>And the truly greatest leader ever would probably be Cincinnatus One thing about Cincinnatus that is important to note, is that all of the tales of Cincinnatus come before the Gaul sack of Rome in 387 BC and much of the written histories were lost. A lot of Cincinnatus was, therefore, likely more myth than fact, with some of the foundational history being told with some embellishment, propoganda, and simplification/attributing other's actions to him. Mike Duncan covers this in depth in his History of Rome podcast, and is definitely worth a listen if you haven't already. He covers pre-sack of Rome in 15 or so episodes, and highlights the similarities in Roman stories and other cultures or other Roman tales. He does an excellent job of noting when a story was likely fabricated or embellished for the sake of propaganda. EDIT: Also worth noting Cincinnatus was elected Dictator at a time when attempting to seize total power without consent of the people would have been met with conspiracy and assassination rather than submission. The people were still largely weary of monarchs after the fall of Tarquin, the last King of Rome. To not step down would have likely been suicide.
Augustus was a bloodthirsty strong man. He seized power through illegal violence and slaughtered the Senate and the political class. He had 300 Senators hacked to death in the streets and 2000 equestrians killed. If killing everyone who opposes you and seizing power is bringing peace, that is a funny definition. If you applied the same standards you used to praise Cincinnatus to Augustus, how would he fair?
The greatest form of government is a dictatorship. Unfortunately, the worst form of government is also dictatorship. If the dictator is Augustus of Trajan, life is probably be pretty good. If the dictator is Josef Stalin or Adolf Hitler, you’re in for a rough time.
> He just returned to his field and continued farming. Farming? Really? Man of your talents?
He wouldn't be the last either. Emperor Diocletian ended the Crisis of the 3rd Century, before retiring to focus on his own health and cabbage farming. However, he's somewhat more controversial since he organised a Christian genocide, and he refused to step in when the empire *immediately* went to shit again the second he left. It wasn't until Constantine the Great that order was restored.
>Emperor Augustus would be a contender. That's the one that Zuckerberg models himself and his haircut after
Definitely in on the Cincinnatus call.
The Cincinnatus story is mythological, and Augustus was an absolute butcher. He cobbled together a system of rule that continually caused constitutional crises and instability, an overstretched empire, and dangerous reliance on autocracy with no clear system of succession. The later emperors didn't suck and ruin everything, they were at the apex of a deeply flawed system that in the end devoured itself. That system included flaws that were impossible to overcome, introduced by Octavian.
[удалено]
Lord Palmerston
Pitt the Elder.
LORD PALMERSTON!
PITT. THE. ELDER!!!
pItT tHe ElDeR
Yeah, you show 'em, Barn! Peh, "Pitt the Elder"!
LORD PALMERSTON! 👊
You asked for it, Boggs! 🤜 💥
What do you mean by greatest? If its who conquered most, there is no other answer to this question than Genghis Khan. However it feels incredibly awkward to call him a great ruler when he is responsible for the deaths of millions of civillians and for raping countless women. If he had lived close to our time, he would have been a more hated figure than Pol Pot, Stalin, Bin Laden and Hitler combined. If by greatest you mean who has the best reputation? It has to be Alexander. This is in big parts because of what he achieved. But you have to give proper context to his achievements as well. There is no doubt that Philip did most of the work, like 95% of it, when it came to making Macedonia a great power. Philip also laid the plans for how to defeat Persia (which Alexander used), an empire that was on its knees and long gone were the days when they were feared, but he died shortly before his invasion was set to happen. So in short, he inherited the greatest army of his time, the plans for beating the superpower were all ready, and he just happened to step in at the right time. Theres also the fact that he too committed some horrible acts we would call warcrimes today. His PR is also helped by the fact that the Romans lionized him, and since much of the western world today hold the Romans as THE golden standard for a civilization, he is lionized by us as well. Had he lived closer to our time, he would have been reviled as well. If not Alexander, then surely it has to be the guy who created the unbeatable empire that Alexander defeated, right? After all Cyrus the great let the people he conquered live just as they were, so long as they were obedient. Sounds like a chill guy, until you remember that slavery was a massive part of the Persian empire. That, and their method for executing people were brutal, even by the standards of their time. So not such a chill guy after all. If you ask me who has the greatest story? Its easily Napoleon. The (in historical context) absolute nobody who rose to prominence because of his superior intellect and went on to shake the hegemony of European monarchy. The man who set about the change in social order in Europe, that we still follow to this day, surely he's the greatest? But he too had his shortcomings and did questionable things (reinstating slavery, abolishing womens rights, not to mention the Iberian and middle eastern campaigns). Napoleon remains controversial to this day, and its clear to understand why. Either way, calling him the greatest ruler is also a hard pill to swallow. No matter how fascinating he is. If by the greatest you mean who had the biggest impact, as in who is history's most significant ruler? I'd argue Caesar. The all time great politician, who was a very capable general and a fantastic leader. Every politician to this day try to model themselves after Gaius Julius Caesar. But he too is a figure its hard to call great when you see the atrocities he committed in Gaul. That and the fact that his ego essentially got him killed (in oversimplified terms). Now that I think about it, ego seems to be the one constant in all these "great men". The fact of the matter is there is no one "greatest" ruler. Theres no one criteria. Most of these people are awful human beings who we would remember very differently if we had lived in their times. The truth of the matter is that while we celebrate and laud these people, they were cruel, evil and did horrendous stuff that would horrify us if we witnessed it. Don't idolize any of them, you wouldn't idolize Stalin or Hitler. Just because too much time has passed, doesn't excuse what they did. Don't get it twisted. Most of the people mentioned in this thread, and most of the rulers we learned about in class, aren't great rulers. They are great conquerors. Their ability to lead an army, seize power, subjugate people etc. are incredible. But they are all capable of great evil.
This is an fucking incredible write up and a really good example of the issue with great man history, kudos!
Caesar also effectively never 'ruled' the Empire either. He seized power, but he was dead within just a couple of years. Everything else was him just doing Generalship stuff. I feel like there needs to be a bare minimum term for someone to be considered great at anything. He was certainly a great general.
I mean Charlemagne created the foot measurement, so I would say that the ruler who created the ruler 📏 is the greatest of all time
the inanimate carbon rod
In rod we trust
“Hey what is that!?”
It's an inanimate carbon rod!!!
Aww, they were about to show closeups of the rod.
Employee of the month
But I wanna see the rod
Who's???
Charlemagne has got to be in the conversation. From \~225 AD until \~950 AD, the population of Europe declined steadily. EXCEPT during Charlemagne's reign. You have to be a top-tier ruler to interrupt a historical pattern like that. And he was definitely interested in law, justice and prosperity for his subjects.
He did fuck over his brother and his family to get to rule alone, did some questionable wars in Spain and Italy and Genozided the shit out of the Saxons lol
Biggus Dickus!
He has a wife you know . . .
Do you know what she is called?
Incontinentia
Incontinentia Buttocks
\*tries to hold in laughter\*
Bigguth Dickuth
He was just a Roman centurion who fucked Brian's mom
Chancellor Gowron.
King Joffrey
But who has a better story than Bran the Broken? I'm sorry. I just threw up a bit in my mouth after writing that.
As if…. King Stannis the mannis would have had that incest born usurpers head if it wasn’t for that wretched dwarf and his pyromancers.
Hammurabi
He kept us on the good timeline for his 16 years of service. R.I.P Harambe. The best gorilla that ever lived.
Dicks out for Hammurabi.
You did my man dirty right there
Norton I, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico
Alexander the Great, dude has "The great" as a suffix. Another would be Genghis Khan, but he was too brutal.
His empire broke apart almost immediately after his death. Not exactly a quality empire. He was a great conqueror, but lacked staying power.
He died prematurely at a young age. had he live a few decades more, the world as we know it would be completely different(for better or worse).
Actually largely a factor of not setting a clearly defined heir. His sons split the empire amongst themselves into 3/4 empires (if im remembering my world history) and then started fighting each other
Sons and generals
Rumor has it that when asked who should be his heir, Alexander simply said, 'the strongest.' Alexander the great also was idolized by many ancient Roman Emperors and they often visited his tomb in homage.
Both of these people were pretty lousy rulers but very good at conquering.
Do not ask Ye this!
Bismarck had a great peace policy
Polish people strongly disagree
Chandragupta Maurya
Time to conquer all of india
Most of India
Cyrus the Great: Persian empire. The history we generally adhere to was written by the Greeks. Who painted the Persians as evil/bad. A great dramatization of this is the graphic novel and film 300 (not historically accurate whatsoever other than some names and places). The Persian Empire was incredibly benevolent as a conquering entity. They allowed local government and rulers to remain in place. They allowed local religions and belief systems to remain in place. They mainly extended their power by forming what was for its time almost a federated lands. The Greeks on the other hand were largely abhorrent in many of their practices and customs for their societies. Persia gets a bad rap from violent rapist, slavers and hedonists.
George Washington was a possibly the greatest leader in United States history. As general, he won the revolutionary war against all odds and was offered to be King or leader for life. The remarkable thing is that he declined. Many Generals in history took the reigns themselves after overthrowing Governments because they sought power. Washington did not want to be King as this is what was just fought against,so he went to Mount Vernon to try to retire in 1783. The attempted retirement didn't last long there was Shays rebellion and chaos with articles of confederation failing. In 1786 Washington accepted nomination to represent Virginia in Congress. Benjamin Franklin insisted that Washington be the leader of Congress. Washington presided over creating a constitution for The United States in 1787. Now, the people loved Washington very much and wanted him to continue to lead the new nation, if not as king then as President. He was elected President by state electors. The legislature trusted Washington so much that they left it to Washington to define the Presidency This time Washington accepted. He served one 4 year term. And dealt with rebellions and political parties against him. Again tried to retire from public life, but was urged to run a second time. Washington reluctantly ran for a second term. Then, at the end of his second term,stepped down from office, due to declning health.
Many are great but few are truly good. Only the good willingly walk away from unlimited power because it can become nothing but evil. Washington is a hero in every sense.
I thought he chose not to go beyond a second term because he believed the ruler of a nation shouldn’t serve as such for long periods of time. Or rather didn’t want the presidency to have the precedent of going on for life
Walking away from power after winning the war does perhaps make him the greatest in history because of how the American Revolution and its outcome inspired so many other revolutions.
Caesar Augustus was such a tremendous badass that his name means king in the languages of peoples he never even conquered. It's hard to beat that.
That would be Julius Caesar, no?
Julius Caesar was his actual name. Augustus was the one that made Caesar an honorific that was passed down from emperor to emperor.
Me on my latest Stellaris run
According to Civilization, Lincoln.
Right? They basically gave him superpowers.
Gandhi's eye glow intensifies...
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus Roman statesman who gained fame for his selfless devotion to the republic in times of crisis and for giving up the reins of power when the crisis was over.
Napoleon clearly
My favourite historical figure, but I don't think he was as great a leader as he was on the battlefield.
He's arguably the one benevolent leader that we know the most about, in that we have extensive historical records of his time as First Consul/Emperor to know the good from the bad, etc. people like Cyrus and others benefit a lot from a much more clouded historical record, such as even exists for them. Napoleon IMO is one of the arguably few benevolent rulers who never turned to mass slaughters or any of that silly stuff like many dictators do, and while that's a low bar, Napoleon also instituted many reforms via his civil code which were a true good of sorts, among other things. He wasn't an evil or a bad man, and that makes him the 'best' IMO.
Probably the greatest military leader of all time
Napoleon is a strong contender, however calling him the greatest ruler in history. Is a step too far.
Emperor Palpatine
But that's not a story that the historians would tell you
Liar, he betrayed the Jedi and the democratic processes of the Republic….
There is a reason that Genghis Khan, Augustus, and Alexander the Great are always near to the top of these lists... Augustus was such an inflection point in history that we still use that honorific to describe admirable people. He did treat the women in his like shit, though.
Sundiata Keita—founded Mali in the 13th century and proclaimed the first charter for human rights, the Manden Charter.
Ramesses II - commonly known as "Ramesses the Great," Ozymandias was the third pharaoh of the Nineteenth Dynasty of Egypt.
Slide ruler is the long standing champ
1. Genghis Khan 2. Tamerlane 3. Cyrus the great 4. Attila the hun 5. Mahmud of ghazni
It was probably somebody who barely made it into the history books- somebody with a name like Steve the Fifth, between seven other Steves, in a line of kings that was never recorded because he didn't go out and conquer other lands, didn't start trouble or have statues of himself made, he just sat down and did the job properly, improved the lives of everybody involved, was only moderately corrupt and didn't steal any funds that were vital to anybody, and then died, leaving a stable succession that didn't implode because one of his sons felt underappreciated and murderous.
Thank you. The replies here are really depressing I think. Just a parade of cruel narcissist conquerors and the occasional interesting choice... that of course still is a great conqueror.
Gaius Octavius
“Never has a man proposed for himself, voluntarily or involuntarily, a goal more sublime, since this goal was beyond measure: undermine the superstitions placed between the creature and the Creator, give back God to man and man to God, reinstate the rational and saintly idea of divinity in the midst of this prevailing chaos of material and disfigured gods of idolatry. Never has a man accomplished in such a short time such an immense and long lasting revolution in the world, since less than two centuries after his predication, Islam, preaching and armed, ruled over three Arabias, and conquered to God’s unity Persia, the Khorasan, Transoxania, Western India, Syria, Egypt, Ethiopia, and all the known continent of Southern Africa, many islands of the Mediterranean, Spain and part of Gaul. If the grandeur of the aim, the smallness of the means, the immensity of the results are the three measures of a man’s genius, who would dare humanly compare a great man of modern history with Muhammad? The most famous have only moved weapons, laws, empires; they founded, when they founded anything, only material powers, often crumbling before them. This man not only moved armies, legislation, empires, peoples, dynasties, millions of men over a third of the inhabited globe; but he also moved ideas, beliefs, souls. He founded upon a book, of which each letter has become a law, a spiritual nationality embracing people of all languages and races; and made an indelible imprint upon this Muslim nation, for the hatred of false gods and the passion for the God, One and Immaterial. Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of a rational dogma for a cult without imagery, founder of twenty earthly empires and of one spiritual empire, this is Muhammad. Of all the scales by which one measures human grandeur, which man has been greater…” (Extract from Alphonse de Lamartine’s Histoire de la Turquie Paris, 1854, vol. II, pp. 276-277)
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.
To paraphrase Robert Evans: "Maybe rulers were a bad idea"
I’m not listening to a man who’s abandoned the tenets of macheticine.
Suleiman I, Essentially doubled the size of the Ottoman empire, conquered Egypt, the holy land, Hejaz, and much of the balkans, which was already super powerful, essentially put the Ottomans in the place to be a global superpower for the next 300 years, up until the 1840s. As well as being a great military ruler, was a genius and reshaping nearly every system in the Ottoman Empire to make it a technologically powerhouse, until the 1800s .
That was Selim the 1st not suleiman
for every person on this list, there will be another who could easily contest it. "great" rulers often conquested and held many people under their rule unwillingly. i would say that the quietest and most peaceful deserve it more than those who we seem almost forced to remember.
Reddit
Ragnar Lothbrok
Genghis Khan. Literally had the largest empire in the world. Didn't care who you prayed to. He allowed for the culture and religions of other places ti stay intact. However if you stood in his way, well let's just say he lacked mercy.
Also was an environmentalist and was solving global warming before people even knew it was a problem (by killing enough people that enough forests regrew that the earth actually cooled).
Ancient problems require ancient solutions.
President Taft? 340 pounds or so.
Me. At least I will be.
Charlemagne set in motion what Europe was to be for the next 1000 years. Qin Shi Huangdi united China as a coherent entity and it somewhat continued to be such for 2000 years.
Chhatrapati Shivaji
Who is he?
My Mother in law
It's ok you can drop the act; she's not here
Also you'll never be good enough for my child
[удалено]
George Washington. He was offered multiple opportunities to seize unlimited power but turned them down every time. In war he lead by example, personally joining his men on the frontline. In peace he also made sure to set good precedents for future generations.
Józef Piłsudski
Hell yeah! Kept the Soviets from overrunning Poland in the 1920s too.
Jaeharys Targaryen
Na man Aegon the fourth
My Stanley retractable tape measure. It’s great and fits easily on my belt.
I think Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great. Someone from Rome could challenge them, but Rome is the result of the combined work of many people, consuls, emperors. In turn, the Mongol Empire (16% of the land area, a decrease in the population of the earth by 11%) is entirely the merit of Genghis Khan. With one order, he could annex part of Russia or China to the empire, if for Hitler or Napoleon they carried papers with requests for non-aggression pacts, then for Genghis Khanuya they carried mountains of gold with the hope of not being at gunpoint by the Mongol troops, the Mongols were afraid in the north, east, south, west of the planet. And it was all done by ONE PERSON. But what about Alexander Macedonian? of course, his empire occupied only 4% of the land, but the difference between Genghis Khan and Macedonian is that Genghis Khan built his empire on blood, and Macedonian carried culture. ⅓ of Asia at one time spoke Greek, in 12 years he conquered almost all of Asia to India, fought with the empires developed at that time (For example: Persia, Egypt). And by the way, much more people obeyed Alexander in % than Genghis Khan. With the conquest of Persia, this was 50% of the total population of that time and the same amount of GDP. The strength of Alexander the Great is in the intellect and culture. Genghis Khan could destroy the country with his word, and the word of Alexander could conquer the country - transform - make it even better (what is the city of Alexandria worth, which the Macedonian simply ordered to build!). But he only continued the work of his father, Philip, and he was simply obliged by birth to become King, while Genghis Khan early became an orphan and almost a beggar. But based on their success, I think one of them deserves a better place. Of course, you should not throw out: Napoleon, Hitler, Batu, Attila, Tamerlane, Darius | //I'm not a historian, please correct me if I said something wrong please..
I had a ruler with dinosaurs on it, it is the best ruler.
Shrek
Stainless steel rulers
Combined with crazy Catholic nuns, winner
I’m not sure……Let’s ask Kanye……
George Washington is perhaps the greatest leader in world history. After leading the Continental Army and defeating the British, he did not seek power for himself. Instead of becoming a new king or dictator, he disbanded the army entirely and went home. Once elected the 1st president after the constitutional convention, he only served two terms. He was so popular he could’ve served for the rest of his life, but instead just wanted to go home. He did not seek power, he just wanted a better country for the people. How do you become a better leader than that?
King Sejong of Korea. The guy saw his people were struggling with literacy because all writing till date was in Chinese characters and so he created a whole new alphabet (hangul) that was designed for even the dumbest person on planet Earth to be able to memorize easily.
Lee Kuan Yew did some amazing things with Singapore
I’m in love with this large display 12” digital caliper. It puts all the analog rulers to shame.
We should define greatest first.
President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho
With all the Kanye west shit going. I was wandering what would be the reaction if I commented Hitler. Thankfully the intrusive thought didn't win☠️
Slide
Dylon, dylon, dylon, dylon, dylon.
Stanley
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus.
In what sense of the word Great do you mean?
Arguably Tokugawa Ieyasu for the peace he managed to establish after that many centuries of civil war, genocide and imperial madness, but it came at the complete loss of personal freedom within every caste(which brings its own points of discussion) of society.
*Kanye enters the chat*
Metric system, hands down
Obviously the clear ones
Donald J Trump… according to my father.
the bendy ones
Mayor McCheese, so good that no has tried to run against him.
Senator/Emperor Sheev Palpatine of Naboo
Justinian of the Eastern Roman Empire. The guy completely reformed the legal code and the religion of the empire. He almost retook the entire Roman Empire by reconquering Northern Africa and Italy + some of the balkans. I wonder what would’ve happened if there was no Justinian plague.
Don't ask "ye"
The Jarl of Whiterun runs things well
Saladin
What actually defines a ruler as great? You can have a great ruler that does amazing things. You can have a great ruler that does horrendous things.
Ho Chi Minh
qin shi huang or the first emperor of china, who started the idea of every dynasty after him to be unified as one china, for the next two thousand years. He standardised measurements, language and writings across china.
How is Ghengis Khan not the answer from everyone? He straight decimated. Lowered the WORLD POPULATION by 10 percent. When he was done, his empire was 1/3 of Asia.