Who are your favourite historical leaders?

[Vortex]

History is full of inspirational and great leaders willing to do anything for their country, even die for it if that is nescessary. The greatest can turn a backwards third-world country into a noble opponent for its counterparts and sometimes even a world superpower, although a strong iron fist is often required to do so.

So, who do you think stands out from the crowd of leaders? Who do you think is worthy to be consdiered one of the best leaders of all time?

[Dinh AaronMk]

Karadzic great drinker of Serb freedom water and salvation of clay.

[Vortex]

Holy shit i have a new favourite song

[Jyoliod]

It's almost clique in that 'edgy' kind of way, but I think in terms of bare leadership, Adolf Hitler was a pretty strong figure. Though this is quite an ignorant position admittedly, I only know of the context of Germany itself around Hitlers rise, and not of his personal acts to structure and use Germany.

A figure I think is worth some mention is Lycurgus of the Spartans, he established the government and social structure of Sparta that made it such a powerhouse for a long time. Even when the rest of the ancient Greeks were facing political reprisal and collapse, Sparta's system remained mostly unscathed and their dedication to military power as well as the structure to obtain such, all starting with Lycurgus, was quite amazing to learn about.

[Vilageidiotx]

Augustus seems like a good choice. The Late Roman Republic has set up a clear pattern, where a strongman would come to power a while, there would be an interim, then another strongman would step up. Marius to Sulla to Pompey to Caesar, this pattern kept going at it kept drawing blood. But when Augustus stepped up, he played some master politics (this is a guy who could have won the game of thrones in a season) and managed to create something else entirely. Something that was relatively stable. That is, as far as it goes, pretty impressive.

Napoleon is another one. As far as warmongering megalomaniac's go, it is difficult to diss a guy who is all about bringing law and liberalism to a semi-feudal Europe. The worst thing that ever happened to Russia is that Napoleon lost.

Or maybe it was Sargon of Akkad. If nothing else, he would at least get to yell "First!"

[Dinh AaronMk]

I'd also venture to say Qin Shi Huang or Cao Cao.

For Shi Huang he basically started the development of the sort-of modern China. Or the state it would assume for a long-ass time. He unified China, ending the Warring States period and set about on a series of grand reforms and projects. He standardized the Empire's measures, enforcing a same systematic method as well as doing the same to the Chinese Language as well as the Imperial currency. He also began the tradition of making government appointments on merit, much less on hereditary right; this continuing on for a long time.

Though he ended an era of free thought in China his reign saw the promotion of the rule of law (it is in face legend written after his reign for future dynasties to distance themselves from his dynasty that he buried hundreds of Confucian scholars alive). On top of this the regionalization of the Empire that saw people identifying themselves as anything but a standard Chinese identity was broken and non-dynastic commanders appointed to rule these areas whose only relevance to the central Empire was their system of alliances and lose pacts. They were then much more centralized and governed as a nation.

All this in the 3rd century BCE. However the Qin dynasty didn't last long because he had probably appointed ministers too sly for his sons' own good, they managing to convince his eldest and his favorite general to commit suicide to put a moron on the throne (Qin Er Shi's rule reads like a comedy).

Cao Cao came a dynasty later at the Twilight of the Han dynasty (you could probably also argue that Emperor Gaozu could be thrown up in here, but I don't got time fo' dat shit).

Of leaders Cao Cao kind of gets a lot of shit mostly because of his rapid success from the son of a foster son of a eunuch to the last Han's Emperor's greatest commanders. He was fierce, but only because he needed to be. Otherwise he was a sharp and quick commander, outside of the Red Cliffs where you could say he was overconfident.

But he was an adept statesman as a councilor of the Han Emperor and later in his own independent kingdom when the Han Empire finally fell apart. And he was said to be very good to his men, so much so they were like his family. He was also a premier poet and in some ways has his own genre of Chinese poetry.

Administratively he focused on his post-Han's state food and education demands, managing to weather a devastating locust plague; the quality of life of both war refugees and his own people increased significantly as a result. He also placed a pretty substantial weight on education in his realm.

However, he died before Chine could be reunified and his sons just sort of petered things out and the advisers took control and then booted the Cao family out.

[vancexentan]

Cao Cao, Winston Churchhill, Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt.

[Keyguyperson]

Winston Churchill, while not the perfect beacon of absolute perfect awesomeness we seen to think he is, he was a pretty damn good beacon of awesomeness. Walther Wenck comes to mind purely because of what he did in Berlin.

[TheEvanCat]

I'd say the post-1913 Ottoman coup "Three Pashas" had the management, logistical, and administrative skills necessary to conduct a large scale extermination of my people. 10/10

[Sabotage]

Genghis Khan and Erwin Rommel for their brilliant military strategy.

[Foster]

Genghis Khan and Erwin Rommel for their brilliant military strategy.

@Sabotage

Tactics, not so much strategic since both ran into huge logistics issues.

MacArthur, because the logistics of getting the 32nd Infantry Division into and across New Guinea, and the later Inchon landings/Pusan-Perimeter where pretty epic.
-Cons: Tended to disobey the president's direct-orders, a lot.

George C. Marshal
7 words: GI bill, Marshall Plan, and Berlin Airlift.
-Cons: Pearl Harbor

Would you like to learn more? Put your hand on that wall.
tl;dr: 110% combat-casualties and 654 days on the line without relief.

MacArthur: Trading US-divisions for time he didn't have.

[Sabotage]

<Snipped quote by Sabotage>

Tactics, not so much strategic since both ran into huge logistics issues.

MacArthur, because the logistics of getting the 32nd Infantry Division into and across New Guinea, and the later Inchon landings/Pusan-Perimeter where pretty epic.
-Cons: Tended to disobey the president's direct-orders, a lot.

George C. Marshal
7 words: GI bill, Marshall Plan, and Berlin Airlift.
-Cons: Pearl Harbor

Would you like to learn more? Put your hand on that wall.
tl;dr: 110% combat-casualties and 654 days on the line without relief.

MacArthur: Trading US-divisions for time he didn't have.

@Foster

Inevitably each of their strategies proved to be inferior in the end, as both the Khan's and Rommel's overall missions failed, seeing as the Mongolians fell to a power-hungry feud, and Rommel ultimately failed his duty in both Normandy and Africa.

Tactics might be a better way to put it. Undoubtedly, the Khan ran into a lot of logistics issues, but he still managed to form the largest land empire. His early military campaigns relied a lot on Chinese cavalry, catapults and siege-based warfare, which wasn't always the perfect method of battle for certain terrain. Best example of this would probably be seen in the Mongol's terror within Eastern Iran. At Urgench the city was built along a river with a marshy terrain that had a lack of rocks to use for these catapults which sort of put the Khan at a stalemate. Even with this, he still managed to conquer Urgench, but with much higher casualties than usual.

As for Rommel, I would agree his tactics out weighed that of his military strategy, even if it was long term. That being said, Rommel really didn't always have a problem with a lack of supplies or units under his control. In my opinion, Rommel's prime lasted until early 1943, where the rapid fall of Nazi Germany began.

[Foster]

Rommel actually started having issues starting at Torbuk, where the over-stretched supply-line forced the axis to make a series of costly hasty-assaults upon the British garrison from which they never really recovered their momentum.

He made a really good effort to go back to the offensive in 1942, and achieved success in terms of gains/losses even though these gains were inconsequential to the bigger picture of a protracted war starting in Russia, and an aborted invasion of England. The fact that he managed to rush a disproportionate amount of troops from the strategic reserve was a greater indication of Hitler's favoritism than juggling what little he had remaining under his belt. Having only 50 German tanks and 14 Italian out of what was initially over 100 tanks at the start of that year.

For 2nd El Alamien, he managed to get reinforced up to nearly 500 tanks, and he promptly lost 50 of them (and nearly 30% of his manpopwer) in the first 2 days of the September operation.

By November, he only had 20 tanks, no fuel save for what was already inside the tanks, and hardly any ammunition.

It is true, he was up against ridiculously larger forces, but the above doesn't really paint a picture of any more brilliance than parking your car in the way of a speeding locomotive, then buying a new car to replace it. Repeat until the dealership runs out of cars.

Also: Employing minefields. Never bothered to develop a way to clear a minefield.

[ActRaiserTheReturned]

Alexander the Great MUST receive due credit for being Incredi-Normously good at what he did.
Han Xin was very good as well. Kind of sad that Han Xin had to get greedy at the end. Everyone, even his executioners regretted putting him down.
Abraham Lincoln was the best we've ever had, before or after him as a President in the United States, maybe even everywhere.

[Foster]

Abraham Lincoln was the best we've ever had, before or after him as a President in the United States, maybe even everywhere.

@ActRaiserTheReturned

Andrew "old action hickory" Jackson would like to challenge Lincoln to a duel.

Broadswords in a pit at dawn's early light?

Also going to give a shout out to General John J. "black-lovin jack" Pershing for pushing for an independent tank-company, and for de-segregation of the US Army.

[Sabotage]

Rommel actually started having issues starting at Torbuk, where the over-stretched supply-line forced the axis to make a series of costly hasty-assaults upon the British garrison from which they never really recovered their momentum.

He made a really good effort to go back to the offensive in 1942, and achieved success in terms of gains/losses even though these gains were inconsequential to the bigger picture of a protracted war starting in Russia, and an aborted invasion of England. The fact that he managed to rush a disproportionate amount of troops from the strategic reserve was a greater indication of Hitler's favoritism than juggling what little he had remaining under his belt. Having only 50 German tanks and 14 Italian out of what was initially over 100 tanks at the start of that year.

For 2nd El Alamien, he managed to get reinforced up to nearly 500 tanks, and he promptly lost 50 of them (and nearly 30% of his manpopwer) in the first 2 days of the September operation.

By November, he only had 20 tanks, no fuel save for what was already inside the tanks, and hardly any ammunition.

It is true, he was up against ridiculously larger forces, but the above doesn't really paint a picture of any more brilliance than parking your car in the way of a speeding locomotive, then buying a new car to replace it. Repeat until the dealership runs out of cars.

Also: Employing minefields. Never bothered to develop a way to clear a minefield.

@Foster

That is true. It was necessary for the Germans to push forward and conquer Egypt at the time, which eventually failed. Having to stretch supply lines a great distance was also a big part of this failure. His involvement in the middle east and so on was a bigger picture during early World War II periods, but as it dug deeper, the conflict in Russia became a bigger issue with large German failure and the casualties that they were taking. The gains made weren't as satisfactory as was in the bigger picture, but made up for his own losses.

After the Axis loss in Torbuk, Rommel came back in Operation Battleaxe, just shortly after Torbuk, which lifted the Germans. Granted, they were smashed down again at Crusader months later. And as you said, Rommel made a very successful campaign in 1942, probably for the loss that he took after the fall of France. And then of course by 1943, everything was basically over. It was more of a back and forth kind of deal, I was referring to his overall tactical skills, but not overall strategy, seeing how that failed. This same process Rommel went through gained him the respect from his allies, and enemies too.

Demand for really anything you can think of was high at this time though. Countries were using their resources immediately, it just happened that Germany fell first because of poor mistakes made.

[Dinh AaronMk]

<Snipped quote by Foster>

Inevitably each of their strategies proved to be inferior in the end, as both the Khan's and Rommel's overall missions failed, seeing as the Mongolians fell to a power-hungry feud, and Rommel ultimately failed his duty in both Normandy and Africa.

Tactics might be a better way to put it. Undoubtedly, the Khan ran into a lot of logistics issues, but he still managed to form the largest land empire. His early military campaigns relied a lot on Chinese cavalry, catapults and siege-based warfare, which wasn't always the perfect method of battle for certain terrain. Best example of this would probably be seen in the Mongol's terror within Eastern Iran. At Urgench the city was built along a river with a marshy terrain that had a lack of rocks to use for these catapults which sort of put the Khan at a stalemate. Even with this, he still managed to conquer Urgench, but with much higher casualties than usual.

As for Rommel, I would agree his tactics out weighed that of his military strategy, even if it was long term. That being said, Rommel really didn't always have a problem with a lack of supplies or units under his control. In my opinion, Rommel's prime lasted until early 1943, where the rapid fall of Nazi Germany began.

@Sabotage

Technically in a sense the Mongolian Empire was rather successful in its goals of creating a unified state and what brought it down wasn't any sort of military incompetence but Mongol law and tradition really, which was as successful as any Mongol would imagine. The thing with this post is that you're trying to frame Genghis Khan's ultimate goal in a modern or even a theory of a modern complex framework, even if "own the world" is an inevitably simple one. But I doubt the real goal of Temujin's conquest was really to do that. The mission of Genghis Khan was likely more along the lines of forming a unified Mongol state through finding and fighting external enemies, as they did. And then taking the people they subjugated and finding a common enemy for them and the Mongols and pitting the combined armies against them. Rinse, wash, and repeat until the Great Khan dies and succession dictates his sons get equal territories and powers.

The other strength of the Mongols was their practice of conscripting their subjugated states into their armies with more-or-less the same equal standing in its structure. Being tribal they didn't really bother with trying to justify any sort of religious morality under Tengrism as most people so they weren't as persecutory as the peoples they rolled in under their banner. So they were much more flexible than any other armies.

Plus it was the classical medieval era anyways, so modern nationalism didn't exist so there wasn't as rigid a definition of who you were in relation to your neighbors and your exact practices.

But in any case, I wouldn't call Genghis Khan a military failure since the division of the Empire went about as would be expected by Mongols at the time. And their Empires likewise.

But in the framework of the thread that is not "best Empire" but "best leader" the question of the Empire's health isn't really a factor since it occurred only after his death. If because he wanted to avoid his family beating the shit out of itself over who claims the entire thing so declared it all would be divided equally with each son being Great Khan in their own right. He was a by-gone factor by the time legal division happened.

It's a similar deal you find in other Empires. The Carloingian Empire didn't so much "collapse" as we might think but just sort of lapsed out of existence, because also fuck having French sons kill French sons. Or holding multiple titles of the same strength.

[Weird Tales]

Hannibal Barca, Alexander the great and Tsar Peter are my favorites

[Vilageidiotx]

<Snipped quote by Sabotage>

Technically in a sense the Mongolian Empire was rather successful in its goals of creating a unified state and what brought it down wasn't any sort of military incompetence but Mongol law and tradition really, which was as successful as any Mongol would imagine. The thing with this post is that you're trying to frame Genghis Khan's ultimate goal in a modern or even a theory of a modern complex framework, even if "own the world" is an inevitably simple one. But I doubt the real goal of Temujin's conquest was really to do that. The mission of Genghis Khan was likely more along the lines of forming a unified Mongol state through finding and fighting external enemies, as they did. And then taking the people they subjugated and finding a common enemy for them and the Mongols and pitting the combined armies against them. Rinse, wash, and repeat until the Great Khan dies and succession dictates his sons get equal territories and powers.

The other strength of the Mongols was their practice of conscripting their subjugated states into their armies with more-or-less the same equal standing in its structure. Being tribal they didn't really bother with trying to justify any sort of religious morality under Tengrism as most people so they weren't as persecutory as the peoples they rolled in under their banner. So they were much more flexible than any other armies.

Plus it was the classical medieval era anyways, so modern nationalism didn't exist so there wasn't as rigid a definition of who you were in relation to your neighbors and your exact practices.

But in any case, I wouldn't call Genghis Khan a military failure since the division of the Empire went about as would be expected by Mongols at the time. And their Empires likewise.

But in the framework of the thread that is not "best Empire" but "best leader" the question of the Empire's health isn't really a factor since it occurred only after his death. If because he wanted to avoid his family beating the shit out of itself over who claims the entire thing so declared it all would be divided equally with each son being Great Khan in their own right. He was a by-gone factor by the time legal division happened.

It's a similar deal you find in other Empires. The Carloingian Empire didn't so much "collapse" as we might think but just sort of lapsed out of existence, because also fuck having French sons kill French sons. Or holding multiple titles of the same strength.

@Dinh AaronMk

A lot of this comes down to why Empires happen. Megalomania only describes a few of them. Most of the time, there is some social or economic drive that causes the Empire to happen. As you alluded to, Genghis Khan's Empire was a snowball. He united a group of relatively diverse warrior tribes. When your court is filled with people who have old feuds with each other, and they have a penchant for creating new feuds over the sparse resources in your lands, then you have to keep them occupied so they don't break everything you have created.

The Carolingian empire is sort of an after-the-fact concept. Early Medieval Europeans didn't think about these things like we do. To them, the Franks were a people, and the kingdom was a land-contract. From Charlemagne's point of view, splitting the Empire amongst his sons isn't the end of his accomplishment because he still accomplished what a Frankish King was supposed to accomplish: he saw Frankish hegemony spread across western Europe into places that had previously been held by other peoples. For him, dividing the Empire amongst his sons wouldn't be so much more different then a modern business mogul splitting up his corporate empire. The win is still there, it just isn't all under one contract. (this is a time when titles were fairly nominal. Hence why the Crown just sort of lapsed from the Merovingians to the Carolingians with no real contest. No civil war, no murder or rebellion. Just a haircut.)

[Sabotage]

<Snipped quote by Sabotage>

Technically in a sense the Mongolian Empire was rather successful in its goals of creating a unified state and what brought it down wasn't any sort of military incompetence but Mongol law and tradition really, which was as successful as any Mongol would imagine. The thing with this post is that you're trying to frame Genghis Khan's ultimate goal in a modern or even a theory of a modern complex framework, even if "own the world" is an inevitably simple one. But I doubt the real goal of Temujin's conquest was really to do that. The mission of Genghis Khan was likely more along the lines of forming a unified Mongol state through finding and fighting external enemies, as they did. And then taking the people they subjugated and finding a common enemy for them and the Mongols and pitting the combined armies against them. Rinse, wash, and repeat until the Great Khan dies and succession dictates his sons get equal territories and powers.

The other strength of the Mongols was their practice of conscripting their subjugated states into their armies with more-or-less the same equal standing in its structure. Being tribal they didn't really bother with trying to justify any sort of religious morality under Tengrism as most people so they weren't as persecutory as the peoples they rolled in under their banner. So they were much more flexible than any other armies.

Plus it was the classical medieval era anyways, so modern nationalism didn't exist so there wasn't as rigid a definition of who you were in relation to your neighbors and your exact practices.

But in any case, I wouldn't call Genghis Khan a military failure since the division of the Empire went about as would be expected by Mongols at the time. And their Empires likewise.

But in the framework of the thread that is not "best Empire" but "best leader" the question of the Empire's health isn't really a factor since it occurred only after his death. If because he wanted to avoid his family beating the shit out of itself over who claims the entire thing so declared it all would be divided equally with each son being Great Khan in their own right. He was a by-gone factor by the time legal division happened.

It's a similar deal you find in other Empires. The Carloingian Empire didn't so much "collapse" as we might think but just sort of lapsed out of existence, because also fuck having French sons kill French sons. Or holding multiple titles of the same strength.

@Dinh AaronMk

And that's exactly what Genghis Khan did. He was famous for unifying the Mongol Tribe, and for his rather large scale and brutal sieges. In a lot of cases, it was never the intentions of the Khan to engage in battle until someone had provoked. I didn't mention the Khan's great mission to conquer the world, I admire him for these conquests, not that they were his main achievement whatsoever. This is important to underline as mentioned before, he is famous for this, but overall it wasn't his main goal. The fall of the Mongol Empire, however, can be credited to a number if things. If you account for their total losses over a sum of 1300 - sometime around 1368, there was multiple things that led to this large empires fall. Part of it could rather be considered political, and not so much do to with militaristic, though the empire was quite so.

Black death was wide spread plague around 1313 in Mongolia at the time and killed millions. It lasted up until about 30 years before the actual closure of the empire, so you could say it was a major factor in the actual fall of the Mongols. Whether Genghis Khan himself was dead at this doesn't have anything to do with this, but more so the aftermath which played out between his remaining sons which caused something of a mass anarchy, and ultimately the end. Nonetheless, Genghis Khan can't be pegged for this failure, more so the black death as it was obviously out of his control. By no means was were the Mongols a military failure, just bound to collapse in on themselves eventually.