Who was the best leader in history?


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?

  1. 7 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's graduation season. You guys excited to start highschool?

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Less of the mouth lipsky

  2. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Bismarck (foreign policy)
    Lee Kuan Yew (domestic policy)

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      As far as modern history goes, these two have my vote, as far as heads of state go at least.
      Also Mustafa Kemal

  3. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Su Uc MaaLong

  4. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >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

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes the camp became an even more problematic institution after consolidation.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Praetorians
      >Downfall of Rome
      They were abolished nearly 200 years before the fall of the Empire

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Damage had been done

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Nooooo, you can't kill Caligula, Commodus, Elagabalus, Poopyanus and Balbinus.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >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

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              >>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

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            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

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              >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?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      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

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >killed all his enemies and produced enough propaganda that people still believe today
        sounds based to me

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          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

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            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

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              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

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Cannae and Adrianople were both much worse than Teutoburg

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >rome's worst defeat at teutoburg

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Julius Caesar would have been way fucking better

        Too arrogant, which is what got him killed

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        his approach to propaganda was visionary and on a scale never seen before
        he deserves to be called great just because of this

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Brainlet opinions. Julius laying policy would have led the Rome lasting a century shorter.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Marc Antony fingers typed this post

  5. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    wtf is that random baby?
    it looks silly

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's Cupid riding a Dolphin. Basically Augustus showing his divine lineage dating back to Venus.

  6. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Lucius Domitius Aurelianus. The things this man could've accomplished if his reign had lasted 5 years longer would've been immense.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >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.

  7. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Me

  8. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    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

  9. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >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

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        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.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Dude, he didn't say that.

  10. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Mohammed unironically

  11. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    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

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *