Best historic world leader

[Vanilluxe]

Since JFK III is ranking U.S. presidents in the other thread, I decided to open up a thread about world leaders for fun. Rank any world leaders current or historic and their nation, and they DO NOT have to be leaders of a democracy like the U.S, but they can be.

For example:

1. Napoleon Bonaparte, France
2. Otto Von Bismarck, Germany
3. Empress Maria Theresa, Austria
4. Queen Isabel I, Spain
5. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Turkey

[PierzStyx]

Augustus Caesar. He put in place an imperial system that lasted for nearly two thousand years, through the worst deprivations of the most corrupt and idiotic emperors.

[Sam I am]

Augustus Caesar. He put in place an imperial system that lasted for nearly two thousand years, through the worst deprivations of the most corrupt and idiotic emperors.

400 years is not "nearly 2000 years"

[heavenlyboy34]

It seems this isn't limited to certain kinds of leaders-so I pick Yeshua al-Yosif (Jesus Christ).

[PierzStyx]

400 years is not "nearly 2000 years"

The Roman Empire lasted until 1452 with the fall of Constantinople. The Byzantine Empire is also known as the Eastern Roman Empire. Even among the people of the times it was called such. For instance the Arabs who fought the Empire starting in 636 AD didn't call them Greeks they called them Romans. And the Eastern Empire was based on the ideas Augustus put in place during his reign. In fact a return to those principles was partially responsible for the success of the Eastern Empire. Augustus died in 14 AD, but started his reign before 1 AD, so it might be proper to say closer to 1500 years, but that is still an amazing feat.

And before you say the Eastern Empire isn't the same as the Roman Empire, lets suppose NATO invaded and conquered New England, from Maryland up. But the capital was moved to Columbus, Ohio and continued. Would you then define that to be the end of the United States? Of course not. We just lost part of the country. It is the same with the Eastern Empire. Italy, Gaul, and Spain were lost. But that didn't mean the Roman Empire ended. They just moved the capital.

[PierzStyx]

It seems this isn't limited to certain kinds of leaders-so I pick Yeshua al-Yosif (Jesus Christ).

Aramaic?

[Gumba of Liberty]

I have said this repeatedly on other threads. I don't need to be lead, so the idea of ranking "the best" World Leader is complicated from my perspective. Does best mean most successful at ruling over others or does best mean a leader who liberated individuals from tyranny? If you agree with the latter, would not the same "world leader" be the largest impediment for the individual toward obtaining recognition of their Natural Rights? World Leader, in modern context, is a person who rules. The only leader I can think that fits into both categories would be Mikhail Gorbachev, the only example, I am familiar with, of someone who peacefully dissolved his position of power and allowed the people to rule themselves.

[heavenlyboy34]

Aramaic?

Yeah. I don't understand why you ask, though.

[heavenlyboy34]

I have said this repeatedly on other threads. I don't need to be lead, so the idea of ranking "the best" World Leader is complicated from my perspective. Does best mean most successful at ruling over others or does best mean a leader who liberated individuals from tyranny? If you agree with the latter, would not the same "world leader" be the largest impediment toward obtaining recognition of their Natural Rights? World Leader, in modern context, is a person who rules. The only leader I can think that fits into both categories would be Mikhail Gorbachev, the only example of someone who peacefully dissolved his position of power and allowed the people to rule themselves.

Epic post. Political leaders in particular are waaaaay overrated and tend to be the worst people in any given society. (even more useless than prostitutes and pr0n makers. /fire11)

[PierzStyx]

Yeah. I don't understand why you ask, though.

Just curious. I knew it wasn't Hebrew. In Hebrew it would have been something like Yehosua ben-Yosef. Also it didn't quite look like Arabic to me, so I wanted to confirm my suspicion it was Aramaic.

[heavenlyboy34]

Just curious. I knew it wasn't Hebrew. In Hebrew it would have been something like Yehosua ben-Yosef. Also it didn't quite look like Arabic to me, so I wanted to confirm my suspicion it was Aramaic.

Gotcha. I was always led to believe it is Aramaic (as Yeshua himself was Aramaic), but if I'm mistaken I hope someone corrects me.

[John F Kennedy III]

Hannibal

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal

[XTreat]

Gandhi.

[Demigod]

1.Spartacus
2.Alexander_I_of_Russia
3.Hannibal
4.Genghis Khan

[pcosmar]

Christ did not come to be a world leader the first time. Though he has influenced the world.
When he returns he will be.

Otherwise I would pick Solomon.
His reign was the longest time of peace and prosperity the world has ever known.

[KingNothing]

Based on his writing, I'd have to say Marcus Aurelius.

[paulbot24]

Chairman Mao. Just hear me out. He plays ball with Rockefeller to be established in what TPTB call "the great experiment." He works this great experiment in the form of Communist China, all too well. So well in fact, it threatens to eliminate their entire global agenda and become the world's biggest burr on Rockefeller's ass....and that is a big ass we are talking about.

[Angel4Liberty]

Ptolemy.
He was a Greek that united the Greek people in Alexandria with the people of Egypt; assumed many of the traditions and customs of the Egyptian people, including assuming an Egyptian name for his people and choosing a "patron god;" and even learned to speak the language, and taught his children the same. He embraced the Egyptians, his conquered land, and they in return embraced him. He also saw to the ever-increasing wealth of Egypt, paving the way for his daughter Cleopatra to become the best loved Queen that our history describes of the Ancient World. Of course, let us not forget the Library at Alexandia, as well. He was a ruler who came to power through conflict and war, but instead turned to peace, prosperity and growth, understanding the needs and minds of his people.

[ProIndividual]

I don't like, nor do I need, political leaders. If I need a leader in my work (an expert), in my education (teacher/instructor), or in anything...I willingly follow them. There is a difference between a ruler (not willing) and a leader (willing), but since we're conflating the terms I'll give my opinion.

I agree Yeshuah (Aramaic) was a great philosophical leader, but I prefer Lao Tzu (Taoist) to him philosophically. They are relatively similar though, in their Cynical leanings (Cynics, as in Ancient Greek branch of philosophy). BTW, "Jesus" is Yeshuah's name in Greek and "Joshua" is his name in English (I'm told by friends who speak Hebrew).

But I have to say, if I'm naming philosophical leaders, I'd have to name Benjamin Tucker. He's had more influence on me than anyone.

But when the OP said "leader" he meant ruler (as evidenced by his example list). So who was the best ruler? Well I'd like to say they're equally tyrannical, but that wouldn't be true. Some are worse than others (and none of them are non-tyrants, no matter how much nostalgia you have for them).

So who was the "best" tyrant? The least tyrannical?

I'd look to the Roman Cincinnatus. Afterall, Washington was supposed to be the 2nd coming of this guy. Cincinnatus not once, but twice, took dictatorial power in times of peril in Rome, and twice, within weeks, gave up the power. The only flaw on his legacy was his murder of a man who had some not-so-good doings with Cincinnatus' son. But hey, who wouldn't abuse that power just a little? Hence why that power should never exist (as in rulers should never exist).

1. Cincinnatus

...has to be.

[Pauls' Revere]

Alexander II Czar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_II_of_Russia

Soon after the conclusion of peace, important changes were made in legislation concerning industry and commerce, and the new freedom thus afforded produced a large number of limited liability companies
. Plans were formed for building a great network of railways, partly for the purpose of developing the natural resources of the country, and partly for the purpose of increasing its power for defence and attack.

The existence of serfdom was tackled boldly, taking advantage of a petition presented by the Polish landed proprietors of the Lithuanian provinces and, hoping that their relations with the serfs might be regulated in a more satisfactory way (meaning in a way more satisfactory for the proprietors), he authorised the formation of committees "for ameliorating the condition of the peasants", and laid down the principles on which the amelioration was to be effected.

This step was followed by one still more significant.[citation needed] Without consulting his ordinary advisers, Alexander ordered the Minister of the Interior to send a circular to the provincial governors of European Russia (serfdom was rare in other parts), containing a copy of the instructions forwarded to the governor-general of Lithuania, praising the supposed generous, patriotic intentions of the Lithuanian landed proprietors, and suggesting that perhaps the landed proprietors of other provinces might express a similar desire. The hint was taken: in all provinces where serfdom existed, emancipation committees were formed.

The emancipation was not merely a humanitarian question capable of being solved instantaneously by imperial ukase. It contained very complicated problems, deeply affecting the economic, social and political future of the nation.

Alexander had to choose between the different measures recommended to him and decide if the serfs would become agricultural labourers dependent economically and administratively on the landlords or if the serfs would be transformed into a class of independent communal proprietors.

The emperor gave his support to the latter project, and the Russian peasantry became one of the last groups of peasants in Europe to shake off serfdom.

The architects of the emancipation manifesto were Alexander's brother Konstantin, Yakov Rostovtsev, and Nikolay Milyutin.

On 3 March 1861, 6 years after his accession, the emancipation law was signed and published.

[heavenlyboy34]

I must admit that the czars were far better than the US presidents. Nicholas emancipated the serfs peacefully-no civil war (that would come some years later, in the form of the Red-White war, which had nothing to do with slavery at all)

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't like, nor do I need, political leaders. If I need a leader in my work (an expert), in my education (teacher/instructor), or in anything...I willingly follow them. There is a difference between a ruler (not willing) and a leader (willing), but since we're conflating the terms I'll give my opinion.

I agree Yeshuah (Aramaic) was a great philosophical leader, but I prefer Lao Tzu (Taoist) to him philosophically. They are relatively similar though, in their Cynical leanings (Cynics, as in Ancient Greek branch of philosophy). BTW, "Jesus" is Yeshuah's name in Greek and "Joshua" is his name in English (I'm told by friends who speak Hebrew).

But I have to say, if I'm naming philosophical leaders, I'd have to name Benjamin Tucker. He's had more influence on me than anyone.

But when the OP said "leader" he meant ruler (as evidenced by his example list). So who was the best ruler? Well I'd like to say they're equally tyrannical, but that wouldn't be true. Some are worse than others (and none of them are non-tyrants, no matter how much nostalgia you have for them).

So who was the "best" tyrant? The least tyrannical?

I'd look to the Roman Cincinnatus. Afterall, Washington was supposed to be the 2nd coming of this guy. Cincinnatus not once, but twice, took dictatorial power in times of peril in Rome, and twice, within weeks, gave up the power. The only flaw on his legacy was his murder of a man who had some not-so-good doings with Cincinnatus' son. But hey, who wouldn't abuse that power just a little? Hence why that power should never exist (as in rulers should never exist).

1. Cincinnatus

...has to be.

I prefer Yeshua myself, as it's what he was called in his lifetime. I just used Jesus in this thread because it's the prevailing term accepted in the US (unfortunately). IIRC, it was the protestants who adopted the anglicized Roman name "Jesu" and it stuck.

Perhaps you are not aware of Yeshua's political role? He lived during a major conflict between ethnic Jews, and his persecution/betrayal was as much political as it was religious (if not moreso). You are familiar with Palm Sunday, yes? The palm branch was a symbol of the Maccabean Revolt. Remember, what Yeshuha said at that time was truly revolutionary.

Some interesting reading on this- http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/factions.html

[Supernaut]

Even though I'm not a United fan, Ive got to give the best leader ever award to Roy Keane.



I don't put much stock into world leaders though.

[John F Kennedy III]

No Hannibal fans?

[Zippyjuan]

Interesting to note that there are not many libertarian isolationists on those lists. Most wanted to control peoples lives and expand their own empires- domestically and abroad.

[Demigod]

Alexander II Czar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_II_of_Russia

Soon after the conclusion of peace, important changes were made in legislation concerning industry and commerce, and the new freedom thus afforded produced a large number of limited liability companies
. Plans were formed for building a great network of railways, partly for the purpose of developing the natural resources of the country, and partly for the purpose of increasing its power for defence and attack.

The existence of serfdom was tackled boldly, taking advantage of a petition presented by the Polish landed proprietors of the Lithuanian provinces and, hoping that their relations with the serfs might be regulated in a more satisfactory way (meaning in a way more satisfactory for the proprietors), he authorised the formation of committees "for ameliorating the condition of the peasants", and laid down the principles on which the amelioration was to be effected.

This step was followed by one still more significant.[citation needed] Without consulting his ordinary advisers, Alexander ordered the Minister of the Interior to send a circular to the provincial governors of European Russia (serfdom was rare in other parts), containing a copy of the instructions forwarded to the governor-general of Lithuania, praising the supposed generous, patriotic intentions of the Lithuanian landed proprietors, and suggesting that perhaps the landed proprietors of other provinces might express a similar desire. The hint was taken: in all provinces where serfdom existed, emancipation committees were formed.

The emancipation was not merely a humanitarian question capable of being solved instantaneously by imperial ukase. It contained very complicated problems, deeply affecting the economic, social and political future of the nation.

Alexander had to choose between the different measures recommended to him and decide if the serfs would become agricultural labourers dependent economically and administratively on the landlords or if the serfs would be transformed into a class of independent communal proprietors.

The emperor gave his support to the latter project, and the Russian peasantry became one of the last groups of peasants in Europe to shake off serfdom.

The architects of the emancipation manifesto were Alexander's brother Konstantin, Yakov Rostovtsev, and Nikolay Milyutin.

On 3 March 1861, 6 years after his accession, the emancipation law was signed and published.

forgot about him

[NoOneButPaul]

Based on his writing, I'd have to say Marcus Aurelius.

My pick as well...

[BuddyRey]

I hate to show up so late in the thread and have so little to contribute, but I definitely have to echo the sentiment expressed herein that political rulers are not people to be admired, and the glut of them are only "leaders" inasmuch as they were lucky enough to be born into - or charismatic enough to be elected into - a position of dizzying and unnecessary personal power.

Every few lifetimes, mankind will be privileged enough to witness the ascent of someone who is both a leader among men, and a very restrained and judicious executor of political prerogative, but this is rare enough on the timeline to make Halley's Comet look like a change of socks by comparison.

[Barrex]

In free societies leaders are not that "exposed". In Dubrovnik duke ruled only a month; Senate for a year!
Sorgo(Sorkočević) from city/republic of Dubrovnik. Why?(He ruled 1 month) Because:


Libertas
Motto of the city:
"Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro"

Oh beautiful, oh dear, oh sweet liberty,
the gift that Almighty God gave us,
the cause of truth and all our glory,
the only adornment of Dubrava;
Neither all the silver and gold,
nor the human lives
can match your pure beauty!

If any of you is interested in history of liberty and free market (and double entry bookkeeping ) study Dubrovnik/Ragusa.(Part of Dubrovnik constitution/1272 year/: If a slave is embarked on a Dubrovnik ship - he must be considered as a free man; first pharmacy; first quarantine;oldest arboretum in Europe;Slave trade in the Republic of Dubrovnik was forbidden in 1418 etc. )Liberty= prosperity

In Liberty oriented societies there wont be so huge need for leaders because every member will carry his own weight.

More known:
Ghandi. What raw milk is for this revolution salt was for his (Indian people were not allowed to make their own salt)... It wasnt about salt it was about principles.Famous "salt march". His satyagraha (insistence on truth or "truth soul force" or "truth force") is one of most known examples of nonviolent resistance or civil resistance.

[ProIndividual]

I prefer Yeshua myself, as it's what he was called in his lifetime. I just used Jesus in this thread because it's the prevailing term accepted in the US (unfortunately). IIRC, it was the protestants who adopted the anglicized Roman name "Jesu" and it stuck.

Perhaps you are not aware of Yeshua's political role? He lived during a major conflict between ethnic Jews, and his persecution/betrayal was as much political as it was religious (if not moreso). You are familiar with Palm Sunday, yes? The palm branch was a symbol of the Maccabean Revolt. Remember, what Yeshuha said at that time was truly revolutionary.

Some interesting reading on this- http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/factions.html

Although I greatly admire Yeshuah, I find Lao Tzu to be preferable (it's a personal preference in philosophy, nothing more). I won't debate it extensively because saying someone else is preferential to Yeshuah in a country dominated by people who think of him as God is a losing venture. All I'll mention is that Rothbard considered Lao Tzu (also spelled Laozi and Lao-tzu) to be the first libertarian. Why? For quotes just like this:

"A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves."

"Be the chief but never the lord."

"Govern a great nation as you would cook a small fish. Do not overdo it."

"Governing a great nation is like cooking a small fish - too much handling will spoil it."

"...laws and regulations more numerous than the hairs of an ox, more to be feared than fierce tigers."

He taught "wu wei", or inaction (Civil Disobedience and noninterventionism). He said that was the best course of any government...inaction. Mind you, this is all 400-500 years before the birth of Yeshuah.

"The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished….The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be."

By "impoverished" he is is refering to proto-market economic thought, and by "thieves and robbers" he is refering to politicians and tax collectors.

"Therefore the Sage says: I take no action yet the people transform themselves, I favor quiescence and the people right themselves, I take no action and the people enrich themselves…."

One of his later Taoist legacy-carriers, Chuang Tzu (also spelled Chuang-tzu and Zhuangzi), two centuries later remarked:

"There has been such a thing as letting mankind alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind [with success]."

Chuang Tzu advocated what we today call free markets and individualist anarchism.

Exerpt from Rothbard's article at Mises about Chuang Tzu and Lao Tzu:

In fact, the world simply "does not need governing; in fact it should not be governed." Chuang-tzu was also the first to work out the idea of "spontaneous order," developed particularly by Proudhon in the nineteenth and by F. A. Hayek of the Austrian School in the twentieth Century: "Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone."

He also said:

"A petty thief is put in jail. A great brigand becomes a ruler of a State."