Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

I was bored and was wondering who your favorite leaders in history are and why. Mine is between Alexander the Great and Oda Nobunaga.

They were both successful military commanders who unfortunately died before seeing their plans through, but both sought the unification of their country. Alexander died of illness (or assassination) and Nobunaga died from betrayal.

Does it have to be "real" history?

It doesn't "have" to be real.

Then Akira Takizawa from Eden of the East. Though, he might not be considered a leader by some people.

Or real

Genghis Khan, the guy who brought up the largest land empire by humans to date.

What about the British, French, Romans, and Persians?

Persians just glomped other places with numbers, Romans weren't any better than the people they conquered, the French lost control rather quickly, the British had guns.

I didn't realize the Gauls had plumbing. lol

All true, except the part about the Romans. They did what the Persians failed to do, which was absorb every culture and nation the conquered into the single idea of a grand Roman Empire. Also, they didn't fall apart after the death of one leader, they fell apart after having numerous corrupt polititians, internal conflicts, barbarian raids, and borderline psychotic emperors (eg. Nero).

Which was why I think the Mongolians had more success with social stability instead of a plebeian and nobility society.

Umm... are you basing this off of playing Civilization? Because the Roman Empire lasted LONG after the sacking of Rome... they had already moved their capital at that point.

Not that they had anything of note after the sacking :P

Yup, the eastern bit survived a lot longer.

British-French-Persians: Meh, just another empire who left their shoe-marks in the history books.

Roman Empire: Hmm... I'd say Augustus or Justinian I(Wife included.)

How the fuck can you say that the British Empire left a simple shoe-mark while the Mongolian one was the best in the world? You high or something?

and like all they collapsed not making it the best in the world.

@Drakoblare: The british didn't discover america, they didn't invent gunpowder, they caused plenty of wars. The mongols were not mentioned because Danaos didn't mention them.

The romans left plenty of functional ruins and technology behind, it's not like the invading forces from the north-east completely wiped out any trace of the romans. 

Also, I acknowledge that the Mongols had a great empire. But did it last as long as the ones I mentioned? I personally never looked too much into Genghis Khan and his empire, so I don't know much of his long-term goals, if any, or how great his armies were for their time. Would the Mongolian Empire be able to face the organized Roman army or the numerous Persian army?

The Mongols trashed the Persians and a large portion of the Middle East  so badly during their expansion that they utterly destroyed centuries of infrastructure setting back the region quite a bit in development. So the Persian Empire wouldn't be an issue.

As for the Romans, they tended to have difficulties when facing more mobile forces that used a lot of calvary and skirmish tactics like the Parthians for example. The Mongols wouldn't have fought the Romans "on their terms" they would've used hit and run tactics and drew the Romans into a fight that would've been more advantageous to them. 

The problem with the Mongol Empire was that it gradually lost its "identity" soon after Genghis died. By the time Genghis' grandson Kubla came around, he was pretty much living like a Chinese noble rather than a nomadic horse warrior. Basically they suffered the same fate most barbarian empires do, they got "civilized" and embraced the cultures they conquered. 

All that being said, I'd have to say that the British Empire had a longer lasting influence on the world today. There's a list of reasons, but one of the more obvious ones is the fact that lot of people use the English language to communicate throughout the world. Even if it isn't someone's first language it tends to be taught a lot for business and trade purposes.

The US, Canada, and Australia are basically its "children."

Then what would be Liberia? 

Bastard grandchild of a crack whore.

Really

If over 45% of the population has eaten human at some point in their time of living, it's a little more than accurate for a description.

British couldn't hold territories against native populaces, regardless of the condition that the homeland was in, and the advances they made over the time they were an empire never came close to the allowance of trade between two continents under the safety of a single country.

Neither could the Romans or Persians :D.  They Romans ultimately failed due to the Gauls and other "barbarian" tribes in Europe and the Persians had so many insurrections (due to their harshness towards conquered peoples) that they were just ripe for the pickings when the next empire came along. And guess who that was... 

I'll give you a hint, there was a lot of debate about him before.

Unfortunately I don't know that much about Mongolian history.

Genghis came, he conquered.

He conquered, killed, and enlarged his Empire by a LOT.

And then trading was relatively safe and all was good.

And then he died.

And then the Empire collapsed shortly after.

Turks closed down the Silk Road (conservative bastards).

Empire shrunk slowly back to modern-day Mongolia.

And as for the Romans and Persians, I didn't like them that much either :P

Lol I know about Gneghis Khan, I'm talking about the actual history. The meat of the civilization. Not just what you pick up off of Wikipedia (which works best with simple yes or no answers, like "Did this person defeat this person") or you World HIstory class in high school (which just glances over certain subjects in a rush to get everything covered)

Best 'Evil' Leader: Star Wars -|- Emperor Palpatine, he was a chessmaster at politics and managed to create a galactic empire with very little to no opposition all the while making sure the transports arrived on time.

Best 'Good' Leader: Way of Kings -|-Dalinar Kholin, he was known as an amazing warrior and kept to a smart Code of War. His troops were better fit, better trained, and willing to follow him above the king he served. He also was willing to sacrifice for the greater good of the kingdom. (And the world.)

Best Other Leader: Hmm... Roy Greenhilt I guess? He manages to keep his insane party together/focused despite the amount of life-threatening stuff and random crap they put up with all the time.

@Danaos: I disagree with Alexander being a great leader. Maybe in the military field but outside of it? I doubt he could have held onto his empire for long and once he died it would have fractured like it did when he died in our history.

Too many to list.

Oliver Cromwell, he revolutionised the British Parliament and gave them much more power, rather than them just being advisors to the king.

He is also famous for completely remodeling the English army into the "New Model Army", the beginning stages of the dreaded Redcoats of the empire a century later.

In a way, modern democracy owes some gratitude to people like himself, just as much as the ancient Greeks centuries before.

Except for the fact that he later went on to grab power for himself and became the tyrant they tried to use him to stop.

Ghengis Khan IS pretty awesome and all, but I personally prefer Qin Shi Huang, who was the first to unify China more than 2000 years ago.

Khans have no fucks to give.

Well, Alexander the Great, Ghenghis Khan and well Napoelon.

Julius Gaius Caesar, Augustus Caesar (first rome emperor), William The Conquerer (He succeed where Napeolean and Hitler will fail...conquering Britain.),  And my character from Crusader Kings 2 Julius Ark the Glorius who restored the Roman empier held off the Seljuk Turks and conquered the Holy Roman Empire, France and most of the Iberian Peninsula

What makes you think Hitler and Napoleon wanted to conquer Britain? Well at least Hitler certainly didn't, not sure what Nappy's ego had in mind.

Why wouldn't you. British isle are a strategic position and plus if i was hitler i certainley would want them out the way.

Thing is that you aren't Hitler and this wasn't in Hitler's agenda. He thought of Britain as the great German Empire of the seas and wanted an alliance. If anything it is the UK that started the World War :P

German Blitz much or did it go past to quickly for you to remember?

He responded to Churchill's bombardment of Berlin. Of course it was in his military goals to take over the island but it wasn't in his ideological ones like the crush of bolshevism or land in the east and things would have been different had the UK agreed to his peace treaties. Of course UK would never be safe with a huge land power in its shores and had to fight... or not, it's up to debate.

You sir are certainly right.

My favorite leader is probably Józef Pilsudski. He was just really badass. That's all.

Caligula of Rome. For the obvious reasons.

They made a porno about him?

From what I've seen on google  images,  his face wasn't exactly  porno material....

1) His statues aren't that bad

2) You ain't seen him from the waist down

 Granite beauty isn't necessarily "People would like to fuck" beauty.

Besides, no one alive remembers how big his dick was, and the statues depicting him in armor were relatively flat-crotched.