The Top 100 Leaders in History

I wanted to show that I am making progress on this list, slowly but surely.  I've collected a list of just about every nation of note and am going through their history looking for leaders of note.  I've also slightly modified the formula I'm using as a starting point ranking system.  Once everybody has been listed, then we will switch from a numerical system to a discussion of those rankings and modifications without the numerical system.

Ds, why is Alex there? he wasnt a good leader, he was a good general, his people mutinied at least twice, he couldnt create a proper way of accession, his sons were killed after his death, his lasting effect on governance is zero even to today's world, heck I think Mithradates had more of an effect on today's world that he did in regards to governance,  the guy should never be there.

good list except for that, Alex should never be in a list of leaders, by the way, looks like you havent gone through the Chinese world, Qi isnt in there yet.

Originally posted by Julius Augustus Ds, why is Alex there? he wasnt a good leader, he was a good general, his people mutinied at least twice, he couldnt create a proper way of accession, his sons were killed after his death, his lasting effect on governance is zero even to today's world, heck I think Mithradates had more of an effect on today's world that he did in regards to governance,  the guy should never be there.   good list except for that, Alex should never be in a list of leaders, by the way, looks like you havent gone through the Chinese world, Qi isnt in there yet.

 

Well, right now, I just go through and numerically rate several categories and whatever their ranking is comes out of a formula.  Remember, this is based on trajectory/power before and after.  Here is what I have for Alexander (I may be off a little):

 

For comparison, look at the top 10:

 

If anyone wants to rate some leaders, the paper discussing how to is a couple of pages back.  I wouldn't mind some help.

 

I haven't rated China, I haven't rated Byzantium.  Those are the two biggest areas left untouched at the moment, I think.

Edited by DSMyers1 - 16-Apr-2008 at 14:26

Originally posted by Julius Augustus good explanation, Alex might be dropping after the other leaders added. In regards with Khalid he was a good general but as a leader he still answered to the caliph, Umar, Abu Bakr. the caliphate fell after two hundred years I believe replaced by the Abbasid one.

Hello to you all

Originally posted by Al Jassas Hello to you all   Well I am biased but I think that prophet Muhammad (PBUH) has much more impact on the world as we live in it today than Genghis khan. Yes, he might not have created an empire but his companions did. Arabs were nothing before him and were everything after him. As for Genghis khan, 100 years after his death his empire was no more though it did empact history by distroying the Islamic world. Paul the apostle also was a top world leader in my opinion, he changed Christianinty from a reformation of Judaism into a religion of its own and if it were not for him, europe would have been a much different place. One leader I didn't see though he also deserves to be in the top 5 is Peter the great. This guy alone made Russia great not in his life time but in the times of his successors.   AL-Jassas

I see where you're coming from, but this isn't a ranking of impact on the world we live in today.  It is a ranking based on how they changed/improved the power of their nation.

I'm not putting in leaders that didn't lead a specific tribe/people/nation.

I haven't finished putting in all of the leaders yet--I haven't put in Chinese, Ottoman, Russian, German..... Lots of leaders yet to go.

Even though Central Asia did in fact blossom under the reign of King Timur, the majority of the lands that he conquered didnt blossom, becuase of the simple fact that he had refused to leave any forms of government apparatuses in the lands after he conquered them. It was as if he wanted them to revolt, so that he could have an excuse to return and reconquer them.

Edited by Penelope - 19-Apr-2008 at 07:21

ds  I think Al jassas is right, the Prophet actually had more of an impact than most people think, his organization of the saudi arab tribes lead to one of the largest turnarounds in history, right now, his influence reaches from Afghanistan to the United States. even the khnate of the mongols were influenced so greatly by the prophet that they decided to have a war with each other because of it.

I heard of a report there are 100 million chinese muslims, is this true?

I agree on Cyrus, its hard to crack the messiah list of the jews specially if you are a gentile. plus he made a bunch of nomads into conquerors


Edited by Julius Augustus - 21-Apr-2008 at 08:49

Originally posted by Knights I personally don't agree with Washington at number 1. Someone like Augustus had a larger immediate impact, and a far more enormous lasting impact. Washington was a great leader, just not the greatest leader in history. Robert the Bruce also doesn't deserve his position in my opinion. Plus, what's up with the "good/bad" rating? This goes a step further than opinions, and delves into morals. I don't think we can judge as moralists. Just because Genghis Khan may have massacred many, many people, may not degrade his ability as a leader. If you completely disagree, just say so - it's okay. Regards, - Knights -

These numerical rankings are just a ground work to start the process--so I don't have to judge them all first.  After getting all of the significant leaders of history rated I'm going to switch over to the process used for the generals.

I know the good/bad is somewhat subjective (not too much, though) but here's why I'm using it--if I were to judge the great leaders of history, I do take into account if they were slaughtering millions or were doing their leadership the right way.  If I look at George Washington or Genghis Khan, I recognize that Genghis Khan took his nation to perhaps greater power, or a trajectory for greater power (though that could be debated).  However, I just don't think him quite as great a leader because of the terrible impact on the other groups/people.

Essentially, I think that a truly top leader would have a good impact on more than just his own nation/tribe/people.  That is what the Good/Bad is actually judging.  What was this ruler's impact on "other peoples" and did the leader have justification for leading his nation in the way he did.  For example, this is where leaders of independence movements get a small bump up.  Actually, for the majority of the leaders there is no significant impact from that rating factor--a 5 gives a +25% and a 0 -25%, but most are 2s and 3s.

I know it is a bit ephemeral, but I think to get the initial list in good shape I have to include that somehow.  It's not really a moral factor, but it was hard to think of a title.  A truly great leader strengthens his nation/people for a cause, when they were oppressed or desperately in need of a leader, and does it without destroying other peoples; a lesser leader just strengthens his nation or people by trodding on other nations for personal glory and gain.

As for Augustus vs. George Washington, I strongly disagree.  I think that some other leader could have done what Augustus did--it is not quite so exceptional.  He did it better than most would have, setting Rome on more solid footing.  But I think George Washington did a more difficult job and did it better.  Some others could have won the war, but he was essential in setting up our government the way he did--there are very few who would not have taken the opportunity to grasp the power far more firmly than he did.

Getting a bit puzzled here, are we mingling 2 threads here, Leaders and Generals ? Very different