In your opinion who was the greatest leader in history.For this I'm not limiting any time or culture.From Julius Ceasar to George Washington to (if you would call him a leader) Barack Obama.

Just please don't leave a name.Give everyone a reason why you like him or her.

In my opinion the greatest leader was the soldiers of WW2.Both sides experienced tremendous loses and kept going till the end.Ok...
For those who don't pay attention in history class.WW2 is still to date the most costly war.Both finnancially (donno if I spelled that right) and it costed a lot of lives roughly 70 million died from both sides of that war and a high majority of the death toll came from innocent people.People who did not have a view in he war.They didn't have a side and some did.But, a lot was riding on the shoulders of the allied forces (consisting of Britian,Russia,and U.S.A.) those were the top three sorry if I didn't mention your country.

And on the otherside was the Axis of Evil (Germany,Soviet Union,Japan).WW2 introduced a lot of new warfare tricks to the U.S.A..WW2 first exposed the horrors of war through Air-to-Air combat.So not only did the allied soldiers have to look ahead.But, they had to look over-head to.Watching for debris from fighters that had been annihilated to nothing but scrape metal.So, you had to be not only physically.But, Mentally tough and I am greatful that others have given their lives so that we could live with our freedoms.

But,my gratitude isn't limited exclusively to WW2 vets.But, to those fighting now and those who will fight.I thank you.

Abraham Lincoln. Finally did what was right and signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Kept the Union together and all that jazz.

At 8/21/09 03:15 PM, CrabPope wrote: Anyway I'd go with Alexander the Great, he conquered most of the known world in just 10 years, probably would have taken the rest of it too if he hadn't been poisened/ died of a heart attack whatever.
He was brave and compassionate, he was forward thinking and also practical.

I second that. I even wrote a paper on him back in highschool when this same sort of topic came up.

Genghis Khan was a pretty impeccable leader. He was a fantastic military strategist, and he founded the second largest empire on the face of the earth, only topped by the relatively recent British empire. He had all major powers at the time on their hands and knees, and helped shape Mongolia in the first real world power.

At 8/21/09 03:15 PM, CrabPope wrote: How are soldiers leaders? They are by definition subserviant, taking orders from their masters. Heroes maybe, but not leaders. Also you put the USSR on the 'axis of evil', they were not, they just signed a non agression pact with Germany, they never fought the allies but they did invade neutral countries.
First of all who the hell are you to say that soldiers are not leaders their more of a leader than anyone you'll ever know or hear about.

Second the Soviets made a pact with nazi occupied Germany making them both allies you pompous baffoon.

And I agree Alexander was a good leader.

Gorlok.

- Invented the wheel
- Led the Great Tribe across THE LAKE OF FIRE to THE LAND OF FRUIT.
- Harvested the first vegetable grown on purpose
- Defeated a wild boar on 3 separate occasions
- Fathered 15 children, 3 of which made it to adulthood. Eventually became the first grandfather, at age 45.
- Came up with the idea of voting
- First to abandon the idea of voting
- First monarchy ( had made himself a crown, that's good enough )
- Exterminated all the Neanderthals in the valley for food.

Gorlok, truly a great man.

At 8/21/09 03:40 PM, Freetos wrote: Genghis Khan was a pretty impeccable leader. He was a fantastic military strategist, and he founded the second largest empire on the face of the earth, only topped by the relatively recent British empire. He had all major powers at the time on their hands and knees, and helped shape Mongolia in the first real world power.

Does the whole, you know, killing of millions thing not detract from his great leader status?
Anywho, i suppose I would have to Lincoln as well, he just seems to represent the very best of the united States (despite the whole Habeas corpus thing), particularly given the fact that he held a democratic election during a huge civil war that he was far from guaranteed to win, personally i consider that quite a remarkable thing to do, since most leaders in that situation would probably just have channeled more power to themselves and withheld an election. Thats commitment to democracy if i ever saw it.

Alexander the Great.
He united Greece and with a small army he conquered Persia the biggest threat for all the world.
He was the first Great leader who respected the people who conquered.He didin't destroyed their temples or mascared them,he showed respect to them.And he did many many more,which I don't have time to write.

I'm the best. My idea is that people should lead themselves and should not be lead by others. To be yourself and be free. Peace, Love and Freedom. You don't need anything else ;-) Great leaders do not need nor want nor crave recognition for they are humble.

Other than that, this sounds like a home work assignment!

At 8/21/09 05:44 PM, Mariousz wrote: Alexander the Great.
He united Greece and with a small army he conquered Persia the biggest threat for all the world.
He was the first Great leader who respected the people who conquered.He didin't destroyed their temples or mascared them,he showed respect to them.And he did many many more,which I don't have time to write.

I would agree, but the reason would be because he conquered almost the whole known world at the time and he was only in his late 20s early 30s when he did it, if he lived longer he could've conquered all of Europe by the time he was 50.

At 8/21/09 02:53 PM, NotLilMicheal wrote:

In my opinion the greatest leader was the soldiers of WW2.Both sides experienced tremendous loses and kept going till the end.Ok...
For those who don't pay attention in history class.WW2 is still to date the most costly war.Both finnancially (donno if I spelled that right) and it costed a lot of lives roughly 70 million died from both sides of that war and a high majority of the death toll came from innocent people.People who did not have a view in he war.They didn't have a side and some did.But, a lot was riding on the shoulders of the allied forces (consisting of Britian,Russia,and U.S.A.) those were the top three sorry if I didn't mention your country.

And on the otherside was the Axis of Evil (Germany,Soviet Union,Japan).WW2 introduced a lot of new warfare tricks to the U.S.A..WW2 first exposed the horrors of war through Air-to-Air combat.So not only did the allied soldiers have to look ahead.But, they had to look over-head to.Watching for debris from fighters that had been annihilated to nothing but scrape metal.So, you had to be not only physically.But, Mentally tough and I am greatful that others have given their lives so that we could live with our freedoms.

But,my gratitude isn't limited exclusively to WW2 vets.But, to those fighting now and those who will fight.I thank you.

The only reason it was the most costly war in history is because as time goes on population increases, and WWII is the last major war the world has experienced, so likewise it would have. And there's no real reason to say "for those who didn't pay attention during history class" since the gaming industry makes 100 billion games about it yearly and everything else makes 100 billion articles/books about it.

Are you an idiot? Air to air combat has been in for LOOOONG time, ever since 1911, in fact World War I, the most undeserving underrated war in history was the first major war to use aerial combat. In fact at the time, dogfights were used with rifles and pistols, there's a story of a guy who swooped in on his enemy and threw his pistol at the plane. Then a French pilot strapped a machine gun to his cockpit and metal plates to the back of his propellers, then the Germans made the machine gun fire at the rate of the propeller etc.

Mentally tough? name we ONE war which didn't/doesn't require that?

As for live with your freedoms, what a joke, Germany had no intention of waging war with America, nor did Japan strangely enough (they wanted to eliminate the threat in the pacific, explanation for Pearl Harbor). Neither of these countries seeked to invade America, in fact Hitler loved America, he got the idea for his concentration camps from your slavery. Well you give yourself a too big spotlight for the war anyway, you don't give enough credit to Britain most of the time after all, since they did train your troops after all ^_^

I love how you consider the Soviet Union on the axis of evil, all it did was conquer half of Poland and wage war with a Nazi Germany aligned country, this is far less then what many other countries like Italy and Romania did for Germany.

Best leader? For WWII, Tsar Boris the III of Bulgaria, while being a German ally and friends with Hitler, he did everything for the Bulgarian Jews to survive and not get sent to death camps, and he actually did a Fascist purge instead. He sided with Hitler because if he didn't he would have surely been conquered, Yugoslavia was conquered already by Germany, Romania was zealous in killing Jews and was a big Nazi supporter, and Turkey was leaning on joining the war on the Axis side, the only other opposer, Greece was also conquered.

As for best leader, I'd put that on Hitler, as after all we're not talking about morales. He was able to build Germany up back to where it was feared, he was possibly one of the greatest tacticians of the 20th Century as he conquered most of Europe, and he was able to motivate Germany to be a fearless and coherent force (check mostly, Hitler Youth).

However if I were to use your logic, I would put it on WWI soldiers, as after all they had to fear so much, the war seemed like it would go on forever, they were stuck in trenches, disease was rampant, it was insanely wet and if they had to leave for an assault chances are most of them would die. That and the fact that WWI basiclly paved the way for the rest of modern history.

Ragnar Lodbrok, semi-legendary king of Denmark. Most of his life is unknown, but what is known is that when his forces entered and captured Paris in 845AD, Charlemagne's son, Charles II, offered him an enormous amount of money to not destroy the city. Ragnar accepted 7,000 lbs of silver as ransom, but that did not stop him from utterly destroying other parts of France on the way out.

Oh, and one of his favorite pass-times was sacking Christian cities on holy feast days, knowing that most of the soldiers would be in church unprepared.

Totally the perfect blend of pirate and viking warlord.

Yellowbeard.
Ruled the Spanish Main. Killed over 10 thousand Dago's & Frog's .
Often made captives eat their own lips !
Hid a fabulous treasure somewhere on a small island north east of Jamaica
Was finally captured & given 20 years in prison...for tax evasion !

At 8/21/09 03:04 PM, OddlyPoetic wrote: Abraham Lincoln. Finally did what was right and signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Kept the Union together and all that jazz.

Right about that! I think he would be better than George Washington because he was President during a war, and not a military leader before. Not saying George wasn't a great man, but I think Lincoln fits this better.

The Caesar Augustus. He started a two-century-long time of relative peace in the Roman Empire, which is like the big kid on the playground that wouldn't stop poking you back in kindergarten.

Although Genghis Khan was also a pretty good leader, if you don't count the killed-40-million-people part. He was an amazing warrior and managed to create the biggest contiguous empire in history.

At 8/21/09 07:23 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 8/21/09 02:53 PM, NotLilMicheal wrote:

In my opinion the greatest leader was the soldiers of WW2.Both sides experienced tremendous loses and kept going till the end.Ok...
For those who don't pay attention in history class.WW2 is still to date the most costly war.Both finnancially (donno if I spelled that right) and it costed a lot of lives roughly 70 million died from both sides of that war and a high majority of the death toll came from innocent people.People who did not have a view in he war.They didn't have a side and some did.But, a lot was riding on the shoulders of the allied forces (consisting of Britian,Russia,and U.S.A.) those were the top three sorry if I didn't mention your country.

And on the otherside was the Axis of Evil (Germany,Soviet Union,Japan).WW2 introduced a lot of new warfare tricks to the U.S.A..WW2 first exposed the horrors of war through Air-to-Air combat.So not only did the allied soldiers have to look ahead.But, they had to look over-head to.Watching for debris from fighters that had been annihilated to nothing but scrape metal.So, you had to be not only physically.But, Mentally tough and I am greatful that others have given their lives so that we could live with our freedoms.

But,my gratitude isn't limited exclusively to WW2 vets.But, to those fighting now and those who will fight.I thank you.

The only reason it was the most costly war in history is because as time goes on population increases, and WWII is the last major war the world has experienced, so likewise it would have. And there's no real reason to say "for those who didn't pay attention during history class" since the gaming industry makes 100 billion games about it yearly and everything else makes 100 billion articles/books about it.

Are you an idiot? Air to air combat has been in for LOOOONG time, ever since 1911, in fact World War I, the most undeserving underrated war in history was the first major war to use aerial combat. In fact at the time, dogfights were used with rifles and pistols, there's a story of a guy who swooped in on his enemy and threw his pistol at the plane. Then a French pilot strapped a machine gun to his cockpit and metal plates to the back of his propellers, then the Germans made the machine gun fire at the rate of the propeller etc.

Mentally tough? name we ONE war which didn't/doesn't require that?

As for live with your freedoms, what a joke, Germany had no intention of waging war with America, nor did Japan strangely enough (they wanted to eliminate the threat in the pacific, explanation for Pearl Harbor). Neither of these countries seeked to invade America, in fact Hitler loved America, he got the idea for his concentration camps from your slavery. Well you give yourself a too big spotlight for the war anyway, you don't give enough credit to Britain most of the time after all, since they did train your troops after all ^_^

I love how you consider the Soviet Union on the axis of evil, all it did was conquer half of Poland and wage war with a Nazi Germany aligned country, this is far less then what many other countries like Italy and Romania did for Germany.

Best leader? For WWII, Tsar Boris the III of Bulgaria, while being a German ally and friends with Hitler, he did everything for the Bulgarian Jews to survive and not get sent to death camps, and he actually did a Fascist purge instead. He sided with Hitler because if he didn't he would have surely been conquered, Yugoslavia was conquered already by Germany, Romania was zealous in killing Jews and was a big Nazi supporter, and Turkey was leaning on joining the war on the Axis side, the only other opposer, Greece was also conquered.

As for best leader, I'd put that on Hitler, as after all we're not talking about morales. He was able to build Germany up back to where it was feared, he was possibly one of the greatest tacticians of the 20th Century as he conquered most of Europe, and he was able to motivate Germany to be a fearless and coherent force (check mostly, Hitler Youth).

However if I were to use your logic, I would put it on WWI soldiers, as after all they had to fear so much, the war seemed like it would go on forever, they were stuck in trenches, disease was rampant, it was insanely wet and if they had to leave for an assault chances are most of them would die. That and the fact that WWI basiclly paved the way for the rest of modern history.

Hey everyone, LOOK AT ME!. I'm a smarmy asshole who likes to make fun of people un-provoked. Then I make a whole paragraph about how dumb that FUCKING JACKASS WHO DARES TO DISAGREE WITH ME. I could have just stated my point, but that wasn't enough! I also had to make fun of his country DESPITE THE FACTT THIS VERY WEBSITE WAS FOUNDED IN AMERCA, BY AMERICAN CITIZENS.
Hey, I found a good website for you!http://americasucks.net/
I also feel the need to put stupid Emoticons like this to complete my epic bastardness!^_^
Yeah, hitler got the camps from the very idea of American slavery! despite the fact americans didn't invent the concept of slavery or torture and was around thousands of years before! yeah, everyone in the world was Fucking fine and mastrubating before those DAMN AMERICANS RUINED EVERYTHING! Hell, African tribes selled off other tribes people to the whiteman(europe), then Americans. BUT AMERICANS ARE 100 FUCKING PERCENT TO BLAME!

anyway, WInston CHurcill. Smart and brave and the only one with enough balls in britain to call out hitler

Of the modern era I would have to say FDR. If you don't know who that is then you should die.

At 8/21/09 07:23 PM, Warforger wrote: A load of shit, also...

As for best leader, I'd put that on Hitler, as after all we're not talking about morales. He was able to build Germany up back to where it was feared, he was possibly one of the greatest tacticians of the 20th Century as he conquered most of Europe, and he was able to motivate Germany to be a fearless and coherent force (check mostly, Hitler Youth).

WHAT.
I don't suppose your name "Warforger" is a reference to your penchant for starting pointless flame wars does it?

Franklin D. Roosevelt was a pretty good leader. While I do not approve of him dropping nukes on Japan, his most defining moment was obviously the response to Pearl Harbor.

But Abraham Lincoln was definitely the defining leader for America. He ended slavery and risked his life for it. Let's not forget the Gettysburg address.

At 8/22/09 06:01 PM, MrCongeniality wrote: Franklin D. Roosevelt was a pretty good leader. While I do not approve of him dropping nukes on Japan, his most defining moment was obviously the response to Pearl Harbor.

That was Harry Truman. FDR died before the war ended.

But Abraham Lincoln was definitely the defining leader for America. He nded slavery and risked his life for it. Let's not forget the Gettysburg address.

The last causality of the Civil War. I love a president who actually makes the country live up to his creed. Lincoln finally understood the horror that was slavery. I admire any man who will not suffer the presence of a such a large, obvious and terrible hypocrisy and terror.

lvl3. (hidden) real people controlling the world
lvl3. Leader (puppet)
lvl2. Politician
lvl1. Soldier

therefore all leaders were fake...yes i know! they wern't fake in the peoples heart, but who gives a fuck.

/thread

At 8/22/09 07:25 PM, Mehrdad14 wrote: lvl3. (hidden) real people controlling the world
lvl3. Leader (puppet)
lvl2. Politician
lvl1. Soldier

Gee Willikers!

therefore all leaders were fake...yes i know! they wern't fake in the peoples heart, but who gives a fuck.

No, not therefore. You didn't prove shit. You gave us a little hierarchy of your theory but you didn't give us anything to prove this theory. And we give a fuck, obviously.

/thread

At 8/22/09 05:51 PM, White-hole wrote:

At 8/21/09 07:23 PM, Warforger wrote: A load of shit, also...

As for best leader, I'd put that on Hitler, as after all we're not talking about morales. He was able to build Germany up back to where it was feared, he was possibly one of the greatest tacticians of the 20th Century as he conquered most of Europe, and he was able to motivate Germany to be a fearless and coherent force (check mostly, Hitler Youth).

WHAT.
I don't suppose your name "Warforger" is a reference to your penchant for starting pointless flame wars does it?

...... No, I'm not saying that the holocaust and his racism was right, all I'm saying as a leader he was a pretty damn good one (Impression of Russia was arrogance, and he had every right to be arrogant since they weren't necesarily doing very well against Finland).

At 8/22/09 07:04 PM, bgraybr wrote:

So (thankfully) Hitler was a horribe tactician and thats one of the main reasons Nazi Germany lost the war.

Wow. How did he conquer most of Europe then? Yah sure he didn't invade France, nor did he invade Russia, nor did he bomb Britain. Considering he was able to do stuff the German Empire was seeking to do a while ago, like conquer France, I mean its not like conquering most of Europe wasn't an accomplishment. He didn't really lose because he was a bad tactician, whenever he listened to his generals it resulted in failure and whenever he went through with his plan it resulted in success, of course he learned this early on, which later on would come to haunt him. You have to also remember, they were being attacking by both Super Powers, there allies were falling/turning against them and resources were dwindling, of course he would not upgrade his army, that would of course be wasting his resources. After all the U.S. army didn't change its main gun for the soldier till the Vietnam war, and it didn't change much at all, while there are still better rifles then the M4, it would still cost too much and be not worth it to get the slight bonus's from other rifles. Thats why only the elite troops get those special rifles.

Good lord, so many of you are just... astonishingly retarded. Like, 'fucked up chromosomes' retarded.

To address each issue in turn:

OP: Soldiers are not, in any which way, leaders. How you can go from listing Ceaser, Washington and Obama as examples (you know, actual leaders) to talking about soldiers is a little mind-boggling. Oh and a pact is not the same as an alliance, you pompous buffoon. The non-agression pact was made by Stalin knowing full well it would be broken at some point, Hitler had made his intentions towards the east very clear in both his attitude towards Communism and the concept of lebensraum. It was just to give both a little breathing room to mobilise. The 'evil communists' were on your side, deal with it.

White-hole: No, blood on your hands is often the defining characteristic of a great leader. As cruel and myopic it seems, people remember the bringers of bloody gold and war-torn security, not peace. Besides, some of the bloodiest rulers in history have been the lawbringers so it isn't quite so clear cut.

Jon-86: By your own logic you're a terrible leader, what with your proclamations of being the best and your pointless grab at attention. By my logic you're just a small-minded fucktard.

Warforger: Concentration camps were invented by the British during the Boer War. Also, whilst I agree with assessing Hitler from a non-emotional standpoint people are too quick to reduce the successes of Germany under the Reich to Hitler alone; preparing for war is a very efficient manner of re-mobilising an economy.

Neogeo57: Hey everyone, look at me! I have a tiny shrivelled cock so I overcompensate for that by sitting on the hard, throbbing erection of jingoism. Please don't make any percieved slights against America because each one makes it go a little softer and I just need to feel it pounding away at my insides.

Bgraybr: He took those 'small, insignificant countries' for a reason you dithering idiot. To begin with it was to test the other western powers and see how willing they would be to intervene, after that it was in preperation for advancing outwards. He couldn't 'just invade' Britain, what with several countries being in the way and the fact they're seperated by the fucking sea. Also, why mention France? You do know he conquered it, right? All of it. Very quickly. Something they failed in WWI. As for tactics, well the Blitzkreig was possibly the most succesful tactic of the entire war and was used to devastating effect in Poland. If you're going to question his decisions, at least base them on genuine fuck-ups like the invasion of Russia. An evil man, with truly descipable and foul ideals, but a great leader.

Mehrdad14: You know, why even bother? Anyone questioning your idea is just another one of 'Them' to you. At least take your private, superiority-complex jack-off fantasies to somewhere else.

As for the thread itself: Marcus Aurelius, if only because I have a soft-spot for philosopher kings. His Meditations is still a very poignant and relevant read nearly two thousand years later.

At 8/22/09 06:01 PM, MrCongeniality wrote: Franklin D. Roosevelt was a pretty good leader. While I do not approve of him dropping nukes on Japan, his most defining moment was obviously the response to Pearl Harbor.

Seeing as how he didn't do that, it would only make him a better leader to end with.

IF one of the criteria of greatest leader...was the effects of their policy(s) on the population during their rule & possibly for many years after.
I would have to pick Caesar Flavius Constantine !
In 325 Ad he ordered the various leaders of the many Christian sect to meet in Nicea. THey were charged with putting order to the definition of the true God of Christianity. Thereby eliminating all confusion, controversy, & contention within the religion as a whole.
THey did this & the decissions that were made there 1684 years ago this year...are in many cases still the guiding tenants to the Roman Catholic faith .
This Emperor's decission to move the fledgling religion in the direction it went has affected the entire world for over 1600 years.
What other leader can you think of, who's policies have affected so many for so long ?

There's a lot of death & suffering that has happened & continues to happen because of this guy !

Hammurabi I guess, he did after all invent the very concept of law and order in general.

Also Christianity is not responsible for all the suffering in the world, nor is it responsible for most or even any of it. Africa=result of Imperialism Middle East=Result of us backing up the Israelites and Russia invading Afghanistan.

At 8/23/09 01:16 PM, Warforger wrote: Also Christianity is not responsible for all the suffering in the world,

;;;
Learn to read !
I didn't say "ALL"
I said a LOT !

I think Hitler was the best or one of the best leaders ever. He was a good enough strategist to take over much of Europe, as well, he also got enough people to think his way to end up exterminating almost an entire race. He was a great leader, even if he led people to do something unethical.