Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043
Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043
Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043
Who was the best leader in history?
It's graduation season. You guys excited to start highschool?
Less of the mouth lipsky
Bismarck (foreign policy)
Lee Kuan Yew (domestic policy)
As far as modern history goes, these two have my vote, as far as heads of state go at least.
Also Mustafa Kemal
Su Uc MaaLong
I would also go with Augustus. While still being a great leader, he knew his shortcomings and surrounded himself with the correct people to properly run the state and win wars. He ended the civil war, and successfully maneuvered one of the most difficult political environments in history for 40 years. However, he failed to solve the question of succession, and he founded the fucking Praetorian Guard that would eventually shit things up stupendously and was one of the downfalls of the Roman Empire.
>he founded the fucking Praetorian Guard that would eventually shit things up stupendously and was one of the downfalls of the Roman Empire.
Brainlet. Augustus' praetorian guard was stationed across italy in small groups. It was only during Tiberius' reign when Sejanus convinced Tiberius to concentrate the guard in Rome
Yes the camp became an even more problematic institution after consolidation.
>Praetorians
>Downfall of Rome
They were abolished nearly 200 years before the fall of the Empire
Damage had been done
>Nooooo, you can't kill Caligula, Commodus, Elagabalus, Poopyanus and Balbinus.
>Yes let's kill shitty leaders and install even shittier ones
>Yes let's kill kill a shitty leader and cause catastrophic civil wars
>Yes let's kill fucking Aurelian because he punished corrupt politicians and soldiers
>>Yes let's kill fucking Aurelian because he punished corrupt politicians and soldiers
Dovahatty's damage on brain lads...
Aurelian was killed by his SOLDIER OFFICERS
Never watched that fag
>While on his way thither, however, he was murdered at Caenophrurium, a station between Heraclea and Byzantium, through the hatred of his clerk but by the means of Mucapor.
>In A.D. 275, Aurelian, by now consul for the third time, suppressed revolts in Gaul and fought invading barbarians in Vindelicia (southern Germany today). He now planned to march against the Persians. On his way to Byzantium, he was murdered in September or October 275 at Caenophrurium (between Perinthus and Byzantium). The emperor's secretary had planned a conspiracy, telling the officers of the Praetorian Guard falsely that Aurelian was about to kill them; the troops therefore murdered Aurelian.
Aurelian and Probus's assassinations were the point of no return, though, since it let Diocletian take power and fuck over the empire's military capabilities with proto-feudalism
>it let Diocletian take power and fuck over the empire's military capabilities with proto-feudalism
Why do you got to say the most retarded shit about a man who did none of those things?
killed all his enemies and produced enough propaganda that people still believe today - he was competent, yes, but certainly not a "great" leader. Julius Caesar would have been way fucking better
>killed all his enemies and produced enough propaganda that people still believe today
sounds based to me
needing propaganda to tell people you're great is just proof that you're not great
augustus was probably stalin levels of paranoid at least based on how many people he killed for being at all opposed to him
greatness is about will to power
sometimes being too paranoid comes back to bite you in the ass but he crushed everyone who opposed him and got away with it
gotta admire how much of a cvnt he was
again - I admit he was competent. and he was certainly brutal. But I wouldn't call him great. For example, one of his biggest issues was that he never specified how succession should work. Sometimes he implied that agrippa should take command, but he had no eligible sons and seemed to not like or want tiberius in command. He was too concerned with his own rule and image to think of the future, so no precedent of succession was set, allowing so much chaos in the transition between emperors
plus, he was emperor during what was probably rome's worst defeat at teutoburg
Cannae and Adrianople were both much worse than Teutoburg
All of his other heirs that he liked much better died under mysterious circumstances and even though he disliked Tiberius it didn't seem like THAT much of a bad choice and he didn't have many options.
>rome's worst defeat at teutoburg
>Julius Caesar would have been way fucking better
Too arrogant, which is what got him killed
his approach to propaganda was visionary and on a scale never seen before
he deserves to be called great just because of this
Brainlet opinions. Julius laying policy would have led the Rome lasting a century shorter.
Marc Antony fingers typed this post
wtf is that random baby?
it looks silly
It's Cupid riding a Dolphin. Basically Augustus showing his divine lineage dating back to Venus.
Lucius Domitius Aurelianus. The things this man could've accomplished if his reign had lasted 5 years longer would've been immense.
>he things this man could've accomplished if his reign had lasted 5 years longer would've been immense.
It would have likely been nothing. He did little reforming in his reign and the little he did were all failures.
Me
Stalin: ok guise I've been in leader for a while now, think I'll retire now and let someone else take over my job
Politburo: No
Augustus was a great leader in the sense that he knew how to delegate shit to people who actually knew how to do it and was both politically and socially savvy enough to keep that going.
Him refusing to properly and definitely change from a "republic" to a proper autocracy just so no one would try to stab him may have sounded reasonable but once all was said and done did anyone have the power actually and will to do that after he consolidated himself at the top? Gods know Rome could have done a lot better with a more stable succession scheme. Although it could have gone bad too, a more rigid system would have stopped some of the wild cards that came to power and breathed new life into the state.
>he knew how to delegate shit to people who actually knew how to do it
>OMG HAHA MUH AGRIPPA DID EVERYTHING
God I hate homosexuals like you
Agrippa didn't do everything, he did what he was good at, military shit and Augustus could and did trust him to do so that is a sign of a good leader, one that may seem obvious but is at the same time often not even taken into account by people in charge because they are too stupid to do so, to incompetent to not have their underlings try to usurp them after the smallest taste of power, or too vain to even consider sharing the glory.
Dude, he didn't say that.
Mohammed unironically
As a leader of men, probably Julius Caesar or Alexander. But Caesar also understood domestic politics and issues in a way Alexander never really had a chance to. I’m convinced that if Caesar had just like 5 more years of peace he would have made a pretty great head of state, and who knows maybe would not have moved it in the direction Augustus did, since he was of a different generation than him and remembered more of the high republic. But admittedly it’s also hard to imagine Caesar stomaching anything close to a political opposite without more civil war