Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
The Top 100 Leaders in History |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1234 11> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sintergeorge 
Immortal Guard 
Joined: 06-Dec-2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 0 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: The Top 100 Leaders in HistoryPosted: 06-Dec-2008 at 22:08 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
So with those criteria up, I'll just give my own 2 cents on some of the rankings suggested here. Lots of interesting thoughts on this thread. I kinda like Ikki's rankings (both for general and Muslim world rankings) though I'd differ in some places:
My own Top 10: 1. Muhammad 2. Qin Shi Huangdi 3. Augustus Caesar 4. Constantine the Great 5. Alexander the Great 6. George Washington 7. Umar (Omar) Ibn al-Khattab 8. William the Conqueror 9. Emperor Asoka of India 10. Thomas Jefferson (FWIW, this list is pretty close to Hart's-- I'd put Napoleon pretty close there, he's at #11 or #12 for me. Julius Caesar, Peter the Great similar. Then Queen Isabella, Charlemagne a notch below them. Maybe one day even Otto von Bismarck and João II-- John II-- might be high up in this dignified "second tier," depending on how important Germany and Brazil become in the coming century. All of these figures would be more or less right below the Top 10.) (For the moment I'm not considering extremely influential historical figures who had some leadership positions but were influential for mostly other reasons. For example, Confucius, Gutenberg, Luther, Newton, St. Paul, Christopher Columbus, Cortes and others all had positions of political and administrative leadership, guiding populations in one form or another-- but these were either small-scale or their leadership/administrative duties were generally secondary to the main source of their influence. Jesus is obviously of great importance-- he wasn't really a political leader, though. Same with Siddhartha Gautama.) Muhammad, I agree on Ikki with 100%-- no other historical figure did anything close (for better or worse-- again, this ranking is about influence on subsequent events). He founded one of the world's great religions and cultural spheres, while also founding-- virtually from scratch-- an administration and a political nation-state that became the root of great medieval empires and, despite the fragmentation of the Arab and Muslim world, still continues in many respects (in the policies of the various countries of the region) today. And this was so radically unlikely-- Muhammad didn't come from a cultural center, and he did this as a merchant at a time when power was basically transmitted across hereditary lines. He was also amazingly vigorous-- IIRC he suffered from epilepsy and was in his 50's when he was doing most of his work as a political, religious and military leader. Plus negotiating treaties, handling finances and other strenuous work. Yet he stayed remarkably on-the-ball throughout it. In fact, when he died from a fever brought on by some desert infection in his 50's, it was actually a major problem for the Muslims since it came as such a surprise, and they hadn't plans for succession-- Muhammad was still in vigorous health before he contracted the infection. (Those desert fevers can be nasty-- even today with modern medicine, if you're not careful, those infections can send you downhill fast.) I also basically agree with Caesar Augustus-- he's the major founding figure when it comes to Western civilization (along with Constantine and Alexander). It doesn't matter which European country one comes from, or whether one hails from South America, Australia, North America, wherever. People from Brazil, Chile, USA, Germany, Denmark, Russia, Romania, whatever-- we'd never agree on a leader from any particular one of our countries (which arose after Rome's fell in 476 A.D.), but all of us no matter what our Western country, have drawn heavily from the cultural and administrative legacy of Augustus, Constantine and Alexander. The one difference here is that I put Qin Shi Huangdi, basically the leader who founded China (as a political state), just a bit ahead of Augustus. That's because the Roman Empire, despite its tremendous cultural and administrative impact, did fall apart as a political system in 476 A.D. (and the Byzantine Empire in the centuries thereafter). In comparison, Qin Shi Huangdi's China held together as not only a unified, and extremely important, cultural and administrative unit, but even as a political entity that's basically persisted even to today. The current Chinese state still uses the same basic infrastructure and administrative divisions as Qin Shi Huangdi instituted in his first empire creating China as a state. (Shi Huangdi benefitted from the Han Dynasty that succeeded his own-- the Han basically used everything that Shi Huangdi started, but toned down some of the harshest elements.) Now, as for the others-- I have great respect for Gandhi, and FDR was obviously an important figure for the 20th century. But I wouldn't put them anywhere near the Top 10 (or even Top 100) as far as influence. Gandhi was an inspirational figure, no doubt, and he managed to break the British economically in India, finding a creative and remarkable way to oust a recalcitrant imperial power. Still, the British were decolonizing everywhere at that point and before it in the wake of WWI, and the main driving force was that the British had been bloodied and bankrupted so badly (losing millions of soldiers and civilian casualties, plus loss of shipping, crippling debt and physical damage to Britain itself) as a result of the World Wars and other conflicts. They just couldn't afford an empire. In fact, India was not the first British colony to oust the British, and British decolonization collapsed in varying ways in different places-- sometimes through consent (as in India), in other places after violent wars like the French in Algeria (Kenya, Aden, Palestine/Israel, Suez). After World War I, the Irish defeated the British in the Anglo-Irish War in 1921 (despite a lack of ammo), becoming the first British colony to become independent. (The Afghans also defeated the British in the Third Anglo-Afghan War in 1919 before the Irish did, gaining full control over their own affairs in the Treaty of Rawalpindi-- but Afghanistan was never a British colony, it was just a region where the Russians and British were vying for control over trade and alliances and interfering in Afghanistan's foreign policy.) The Iraqis rebelled and forced out the British by 1930. Australia more or less took on an independent entity in part because of the bitter memory of the Gallipoli campaign-- I realize that people still argue vigorously over whether Churchill or other British politicians/officers were culpable for Gallipoli (and the British in fact had more casualties at Gallipoli than the Australians did), but what matters is that Australian perception as an independent polity was heavily molded after 1917, which helped to impel Australia to go its own way. (It had been self-governing since 1901, though.) On top of these early decolonizations, Britain was smashed at Singapore in 1942 by the Japanese, which permanently broke the perception of Western superiority over non-Western powers (even though this had happened before-- e.g. Italy in Ethiopia, the French in Mexico Battle of Puebla, the British defeats in Afghanistan in 1840's and 1880's, Liniers in 1806, and against Muhammad Ali in 1807 Alexandria Expedition). The UK also took part in other conflicts (such as the failed intervention for the White forces in the Russian Civil War, and brief expeditions in Indonesia and Vietnam in 1945 to prop up the Dutch and French there-- which were also unsuccessful) that, on top of the World Wars and the post-WWI wars of decolonization, killed off an entire generation (their cream of the crop) and drained away British resources. The irony is that the British were probably the one big power that could have stayed out of WWI or just been a "side combatant," or at least taken an early armistice-- they weren't targeted by either side, and Wilhelm II, for all his blustering, was no Napoleon on the Continent-- and if they'd done that, the British Empire would probably still be intact today. The British desperately wanted to hold onto the empire even after the bloodying of the World Wars-- Churchill himself was vociferous about this-- and in any case, Gandhi and others like him had many predecessors, violent or not, who tried to oust the British. (Read about the British reprisals in India after the 1857 rebellion, to get a taste of what they did to Indians who revolved-- and even those who didn't. And yes, I'm part-British-- gotta accept the good and the bad, just like for the other countries involved in the colonial business.) The mindset of people back then was very different from today-- imperialism had its own logic to justify it, and it could be portrayed as a "humane empire," a "necessary evil," an "essential administration"-- and people like Gandhi would just be dismissed, or worse depending on how dangerous they were perceived. But the British were too devastated economically, militarily, socially, demographically and just in terms of their morale to continue to hold an empire. Gandhi was a brilliant person and of my personal heroes, and I hope his examples continues to inspire future generations. But as far as his influence-- decolonization was already occurring, mostly for other reasons. Gandhi came about at the right time. For the same reasons, I wouldn't put FDR anywhere near so high. He's one of the major figures of the 20th century no doubt, but I feel like this is making the classic error of putting too much emphasis on recent events-- what will historians 5 centuries from now think about Roosevelt? He was a skilled and capable leader, and he more than anyone else forged the political and economic system that the USA still has today, while helping to establish many important post-WWII institutions. But in the same league as people like Constantine, Alexander, Asoka and others who founded entire civilizations, or who began social/religious movements that stretch across much of the world? Even as far as American Presidents go, I'd put George Washington and Thomas Jefferson way above FDR. Washington was more or less the founder of the USA-- not only defeating the British on the battlefield, but presiding over the Constitutional Convention and setting the standard for the Presidency and US leadership in general. Washington was more or less the chief executive who got the current chief global superpower off the ground in the first place. Jefferson was the chief intellectual figure involved in crafting basic American standards of government (not just in the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence, but also in the Kentucky/Virginia Resolutions, separation of Church and State), and as President, Jefferson doubled American territory with the Louisiana Purchase and the Lewis and Clark expeditions, which would culminate in the further expansion under James K. Polk-- Oregon, war with Mexico. (Jefferson may have been somewhat of a hypocrite on slavery, but even here, his views and actions were complex-- times were very different then, and if anything, Jefferson was much more disapproving of the institution than his contemporaries.) So while FDR was a key figure for 20th-century history, he didn't have the foundational impact of Jefferson or especially Washington, and he's nowhere near the same league as pivotal ancient figures-- like Augustus, Muhammad, Constantine, Asoka or Qin Shi Huangdi, who founded durable and powerful institutions that are still fundamental to many nations and cultures, across the world, today. I'd suspect that 1,000 years from now, historians will still be very much focusing on Augustus, Muhammad and the others (including Washington and Jefferson, whose institutions transcend the USA itself), but I doubt FDR would be in the same circle. Still an important figure, just not at the same level. As for the others on my Top 10 list: Umar (Omar) Ibn al-Khattab was the caliph after Muhammad, who was instrumental as a military and political leader in expanding the Islamic world into the Byzantine and Persian Empires, and beyond. Umar's conquests were among the few that have had a durable and more-or-less permanent impact both culturally and administratively, and radically changed the course of history. Remember that the Persians and Byzantines were really the military powers of their time, and in defeating them both, Umar was able to spread the Muslim faith (as well as the Arabic language and cultural customs to varying extents) not only in their territories, but eventually into North Africa and South Asia (where it had a Persian flavor to it). If it hadn't been for Umar, Islam would probably be just a small minority religion in a section of the Arab world today. William the Conqueror is also up there as one of those "changed the course of history" guys, mainly for the administration he instituted. William was the first to introduce what became the bureaucratic state system in northwest Europe, which would be the basis for subsequent imperial expansion. He introduced this first into Normandy, then brought England within the same administrative sphere-- things like the Oath of Salisbury, the Domesday Book, the Norman ecclesiastical revisions, even the castles and architecture of England, all flowed from William's reforms at his work to generate a centralized bureaucracy. Culturally, William also had an impact on England, although I think this is sometimes overstated. French culture was more or less predominant throughout Europe then and for many centuries afterward (it's why French has been a global lingua franca for many centuries), and French cultural practices and French vocabulary also entered Dutch, German, even Danish, Swedish and other Germanic civilizations, even though they never suffered a Norman Conquest (though some of them also experienced varying degrees of French occupation). Still, the political unification of England with Normandy/Anjou made the cultural impact more deep-rooted. I put William in the Top 10 b/c his impact was truly multinational. Most people would hesitate to put any European king into the Top 10, since strictly national figures really can't compare in influence with the international, global impact of ancient figures like Augustus or Muhammad (or innovators like Washington and Jefferson, whose institutions have already had such a major global impact). Also, as I guess Britain's power and influence decline (and possibly the USA as well in coming years), many people like to knock William down a few more notches. Still, William wasn't just a key figure for England. His bureaucratic state was at the heart of northwest Europe, and it spread into France (after Normandy got conquered by France in the 1200's), and was also imitated by authorities in other Norman kingdoms and even outside of them. William IOW was a key figure in what would later become European imperial expansion. Finally, Asoka: He was a skilled conqueror, and under him India reached its greatest territorial extent. But he was also the figure chiefly responsible for spreading Buddhism. And he was a skillful and surprisingly humane administrator, especially given his time-- many durable institutions in South Asia are a result of Asoka, who's a world figure both for his administrative accomplishments and for his importance in spreading Buddhism internationally. Napoleon and Julius Caesar are obviously still important. (Despite his defeat at Waterloo, the impact of Napoleon's institutions are still in Europe. Julius Caesar, in conquering Gaul and introducing a new power center into Rome, obviously had a major impact.) And they're still up there, just not quite at the same level as people like Augustus, Muhammad or Qin Shi Huangdi. I'd suspect, if Napoleon hadn't lost at Leipzig and Waterloo, and if he hadn't sold off the Louisiana Territory (both of which prevented him from fostering truly lasting institutions globally), he'd easily be in the Top 5. Peter the Great is still a towering foundational figure and Russia still an important nation-- again, he just doesn't have quite the same international influence as the others on the list. Same with Otto von Bismarck. If Germany becomes something like an EU leader, and a political/administrative/cultural center (it already is the economic center, more or less) in Europe in the 21st century, then Bismarck will have been the crucial facilitator. (Maybe some recognition, too, of Frederick the Great and that Emperor Otto guy in the medieval period who consolidated power-- though they had nowhere near the impact of Bismarck, who was the one who finally unified Germany after almost 1,500 years of fragmentation among the German principalities.) If Brazil becomes a big power, João II (began the actual settlement and imperial expansion of Portugal-- the first to actually found a European colony outside of Europe, in fact) would require the same consideration. Edited by Sintergeorge - 06-Dec-2008 at 22:50 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sintergeorge
Immortal Guard
Joined: 06-Dec-2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 0 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Dec-2008 at 20:15 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
My friends and I do "leadership rankings" on the basis of influence on subsequent history-- which is more or less the only semi-objective criterion that people from different cultures/backgrounds can agree on-- something along the lines of what Michael H. Hart did with his own famous list.
That being said-- even though influence can be destructive as well as constructive, I still sense that overall, influence rankings won't have mega-villains anywhere near the top, for the simple reason that it's much harder to create something (a new administration, a scientific or artistic advance), and thus to establish an innovative and durable legacy and institutions, than to just be a mass-killer. That's why history's big killers, like Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan, Lord Lytton (the British administrator whose policies helped bring about the mega-famines in India late 19th-century), Pol Pot-- I just don't see them having a big impact long-term. Even Genghis Khan, who did after all, establish what would become the world's biggest-ever empire (under Kublai Khan)-- he had some institutional accomplishments, like the first "pony express" and stable roads that helped communications across Eurasia, plus the Mughals (with an enormous impact on Indian history) were descended from the Mongols and their historical example. But most of what Genghis and his successors did was to take a wrecking ball to other, established and culturally advanced civilizations (like China and Baghdad), who ultimately defeated and mostly assimilated the Mongols culturally by the 13th and 14th centuries. Genghis's influence is limited simply because the Mongols, while militarily strong, left comparatively little in terms of lasting cultural, political and administrative institutions. That's one of the reasons why the only durable Mongol state is a rather small (geographically large but small in population and economy) country in northeastern Asia. In comparison, people like Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar, Constantine, St. Paul, Qin Shi Huang Di (founder of the Chinese state as a unified political entity), Muhammad all created extremely durable and influential institutions, that still have an enormous impact across the world today. It's not that they were altar boys by any means-- most of them were involved in some bitter conflicts of their own, and Alexander in particular was involved in sanguinary conquests. But all of them are influential for the cultural and administrative legacies they provided, and this constructive tendency also means that, while they often lived in war-torn and brutal periods, they (for their times) also demonstrated an unusual degree of moral consideration and tolerance. Alexander for example, could have gone scorched-earth on the Persian lands (Aristotle himself said the Persians were barbarians), but he came to greatly respect the Persian civilization and even to partially identify himself and his soldiers with the Persian element. That's why the crucial Hellenistic civilization came about. Even as the Near East came under the Greek cultural sway, Persian and other Eastern influences remained strong, which is a big part of why so many of us in the West today are members of a religion founded in the East (Christianity)-- in a region conquered by Alexander and brought into the Hellenic world, thence into the Roman and Byzantine Empires. Alexander was also an explorer, and many pillars of modern civilization got their start because East and West had that great (and largely unparalleled) exchange as Alexander moved his armies and administrators throughout what was then "the civilized world." Constantine abolished slavery even as he brought Christianity to prominence (though he himself was more tolerant in general of various religions than many of his successors were), and Augustus, despite his own bloody path to power, introduced humane laws (again, for their time) which helped to stitch together the Roman Empire as a unified polity with the character of a nation. Qin Shi Huangdi was a tough leader, but he also introduced an administrative system and unifying factors (such as a code of writing, weights and measures, coinage, even road diameters) that have persisted to the present day 2,000 years later-- the reason that China is really the only ancient power to remain intact as a political/administrative state, not just a cultural sphere, today. IOW, the most influential leaders became so in part because they had a moral, constructive element that actually created something innovative, a durable institution that lasted. Edited by Sintergeorge - 06-Dec-2008 at 23:08 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Penelope
Chieftain 
Alia Atreides Joined: 26-Aug-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1042 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Nov-2008 at 06:34 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Oh good.
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DSMyers1
Colonel 
Suspended Joined: 09-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 603 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Nov-2008 at 14:40 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
He is the highest ranked leader of Aragon, but still only #246--right behind #245 Edward III and right ahead of #247 Eisenhower. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Penelope
Chieftain
Alia Atreides Joined: 26-Aug-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1042 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Nov-2008 at 04:11 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Peter III the Great of Aragon. He was one of the greatest of medieval Aragonese monarchs.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DSMyers1
Colonel
Suspended Joined: 09-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 603 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Nov-2008 at 04:24 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yes, William the Silent is a very good addition to the list. I went ahead and added him and Prince Maurice of Nassau. William ranks 25th in my initial evaluation, and could be higher. Maurice came in at 87th.
I was very surprised, also, about the lack of Greeks in my initial evaluation of the best leaders. To be honest, though, I haven't researched Greece's leaders yet....I was working on Genoa (and going alphabetically) when I stopped working on this much last summer, so almost ready for Greece. I had done Athens, so Themistocles was already rated; he came out at #140. I will reevaluate and make sure of my rating of him.
Gustav II Adolph added. He comes in only 44th, because he simply used the structure built by Gustav I--he did not build the country, per se, simply put it in motion. (Is that right?)
#122
Al-Saffah off the list (well, to #319), and Mansur on at #50. I don't know the history of the Abbasids that well! I think I disagree with you on Saladin, though it is not my area of expertise. He took a totally disjointed collection of tribes, peoples, etc. and welded an effective "empire" able to halt the crusaders and other threats, for some 75 years. I don't see how I can rate him any differently, really... It's just the way the formula works for him. I dropped Khalid's impact rating from 3 to 2, since you seem to feel his impact on what the Arabs accomplished was rather secondary. That drops him from 16th out of the top 100 (yes, the algorithm is a little hyper sensitive to impact percentage--essentially, "3" means 60% of the credit belongs to him; "2" means 40%).
I've never heard of Jahan Ara.... Any more information? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Zagros
Emperor 
Suspended Joined: 11-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 8792 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Nov-2008 at 00:14 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jahan Ara - took Khorramshahr back from the marauding - internationally funded and equipped - Arab horde of Saddam Hussain. Think about the odds, it was literally Jahan Ara vs the world and Jahan Ara won.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Al Jassas
Arch Duke 
Joined: 07-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1810 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Nov-2008 at 14:08 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello to you all
About the leaders, here are some notes that need to be taken about the Arabs:
1- Al-Saffah: He doesn't deserve to be on the list, he was just a puppet for his uncles, brother and henchmen. Abu Jaafar Al-Mansur should be on the list, he is the one who really founded the dynasty and stengthened it by ending all external and internal threats and he also built Baghdad and started the translation movement.
2-Saladin: He also doesn't deserve to be on the list either. His legacy was limited to a part of the world and was not lasting, unless you count the Mamelukes.
3-Khalid Ibn Al-Walid: He was a military genious but that is it.
AL-Jassas
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Count Belisarius
Chieftain
Magister Militum Joined: 25-Jul-2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1109 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Nov-2008 at 01:31 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What about Joan of Arc?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting) 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Penelope
Chieftain
Alia Atreides Joined: 26-Aug-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1042 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Nov-2008 at 01:12 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
King Gustavus The Great of Sweden. Single handedly responsible for the "Golden Age of Sweden" which also earned him the epithet "The Golden King". During his reign, Sweden rose from the status as a mere regional power to one of the most powerful countries in europe. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Guests
Guest 
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Nov-2008 at 10:43 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Surprised the lack of prominent Greeks.
No Pericles? No Alcibiades? No Themistocles? Themistocles should DEFINITELY be on the list of great leaders in my opinion, and the other two are worthy of consideration also. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Red4tribe
Pretorian 
Joined: 08-Jun-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 170 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 14:11 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What do you think of adding William the Silent? The father of the Netherlands? He led the Dutch provinces together for 20 years against the Spanish, protecting them from Religious persecution until his assasination in 1584.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining.
George Washington - March 15, 1783 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DSMyers1
Colonel
Suspended Joined: 09-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 603 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Nov-2008 at 00:23 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Top 100 Leaders Current Excel File (updated November 4, 2008): Leaders.xls (Includes Macros)
The Top 100 Leaders Quantitative Formula: Top 100 Leaders Formula 3.pdf I haven't made any new changes, but if anyone wants to help out, feel free to work on this! In the Excel file are lists of what nations have been worked on this far. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sultanmurad
Immortal Guard
Joined: 01-Aug-2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 0 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Aug-2008 at 16:20 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sultan suleyman the magnificient,great alexander,cenghiz khan,napoleon bonaparte,queen victoria,adolf hitler,amir temur are several of top 100 my favourites
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
we conquered you watch
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DSMyers1
Colonel
Suspended Joined: 09-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 603 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Jul-2008 at 19:09 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You got it  |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Paul Anthony
Immortal Guard
Joined: 31-Jul-2008 Location: Earth Online Status: Offline Posts: 0 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 31-Jul-2008 at 18:36 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please, no Canadians.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jonathan4290
Pretorian
Joined: 03-Mar-2008 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 185 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jul-2008 at 17:14 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No argument here. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing?
Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DSMyers1
Colonel
Suspended Joined: 09-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 603 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jul-2008 at 12:49 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yeah, I looked at the Canadians. Using the numerical system I am, it requires someone to make a pretty big splash to get on the list. Here are the last 10 right now--considering where I am in the alphabet, they will probably all end up getting bumped off:
Lester Pearson isn't in that league, just on the ol' eyeball test. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Justinian
Chieftain
King of Númenor Joined: 11-Nov-2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1399 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jul-2008 at 07:52 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ah, that explains it.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jonathan4290
Pretorian
Joined: 03-Mar-2008 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 185 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jul-2008 at 02:47 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If you want to consider anyone from Canada, consider Lester B. Pearson. Although I believe the whole Suez Crisis wasn't as important as it's made it out to be, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in cooling it. Also for Canadians he:
- gave Canada a national identity by creating the maple leaf as a symbol
- ensured de Gaulle never visited Canada again after trying to incise Quebec (province) seperation from Canada
- reduced unemployment to its lowest rate with the Automotive Agreement with the USA
- introduced universal health care which all of us Canadians value
If any Canadian is going to make the list, it's him but it's up to you to determine if he stacks up against the infinite amount of other contenders. That's my two cents for Canada.
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing?
Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Good luck with the list.|
Post Reply
|
Page <1234 11> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.
