My Top Ten Heads of State in Global History

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Sep 25, 2011
63,590
16,753
2,220
I would be interested in what others think about who they think the top ten would be.

Top Ten Heads of State in World History
Criteria: 1) Was not conquered in war, but instead reversed a difficult military situation
2) Established or altered the government and nation to be much more successful and high impact on regional affairs


10. Qin Shi Huang - Qin Shi Huang - Wikipedia
This great man created China and became its first emperor, and gave them standards of measure, language and government.

9. Peter the Great - Peter the Great - Wikipedia
Peter the Great modernized Russia and defeated the extraordinary Swedish Empire to secure Russian control of the Baltic Sea, as he established control of the Black Sea to the south. He made Russia into a Western oriented realm and dragged it into the modern era.

8. Ghenghis Khan - Genghis Khan - Wikipedia

Ghenghis Khan did more than create the largest contiguous empire in the history of mankind, he also united the tribes of the steppe and formed them into a Mongol ethnic whether they were Turk, Mongol or Tartar. He allowed the Silk Road to form by protecting and promoting trade across the Eurasian continent.

The stories of the wealth of Kathay brought back by European traders like Marco Polo lit the fires of Western European exploration for centuries.

7. Ashoka the Great of India - Ashoka - Wikipedia
This man formed the Indian sense of self, uniting it with conquest, but introducing Budhism to pacify the population during peace. He did a great many other things, but we would not be speeaking of India today I think were it not for him.


6. Charlemagne - Charlemagne - Wikipedia
This great man revived learning in Western Europe, and gave a new birth to the notion of the Western Roman Empire embodied for a thousand years as the Holy Roman Empire. Western Europes nations owe their existance to his splintered empire; France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Spain, Denmark, Hungary, and the low countries of the Netherlands, Belgum and Luxemborg.

5. Constantine the Great - Constantine the Great - Wikipedia

He Christianized the Roman society of his time and extended its degenerate life for a couple of centuries, but mostly he prepared the way for Byzantium to persist for another thousand years. Western Europe owes him the establishment of the head of state being subordinate to God's Law.

4. Abraham Lincoln -
We all know Old Abe, who struggled so long and endured so much in the effort to save our nation from division and failure. After his death, his notion of Republicanism, of industry, education and a strong nation able to meet its challenges united, made the USA into the crucible formed solid steel it is today. Winning the American Civil War was a grueling effort, few leaders could have handled, and especially not with the affinity for the concept of the American Republic that made us into who we are today.

3. Mohamed - Muhammad - Wikipedia

Muhamed introduced a new faith that swept the Biblical lands and inherited the Holy Lands of the Middle East. His genius at organization and using the Arabic adaptation to the desert life as a means to constantly flank his desert unfamiliar rivals and enemies. His government lasted for centuries, but his newly born faith endured for millennia. He is truly among the most remarkable of heads of state to ever live.

2. George Washington -
George Washington is one of the few great leaders who could have been made King or dictator and chose not to. His military excellence is tarnished by fools today because they do not grasp what he faced, division of the nation along the Hudsen River, and while the Brits had 25k of the best trained and equipped troops int he world in New York, backed up by the best fleet as well, Washington had to harass the Brits into believing that he had many more men than he did and tie them down to the base of supply, which he accomplished despite the odds against him.

When the French establi9shed control of the Chessapeake Bay, he recognized the opportunity to trap Cromwell's army in Virginia and he forced marched his army hundreds of miles to get there in time and he pounded Cromwell into submission.

Washington deeply believed in a Republican form of government, and he served as the first President of our new Constitution, setting precedent and example for every President that followed him.

It is no exagerration to say that the USA today would not exist were it not for this God Gifted man. The USA has been blessed with two of the top leaders in human history, ( and maybe a third) and our wealth and power is the result, though we did not pursue power for the longest time.

1. Alfred the Great - Alfred the Great - Wikipedia

Alfred the Great was the greatest ruler, leader, reformer and educator of all human history rolled into one person. He ruled during a time when Viking raids were incessant in England, in fact England as a concept did not exist, there were five kingdoms instead; Mercia, Wessex, Sussex, Anglia and Northumbria. Alfreds long term goal was to creat England from uniting Saxons and Danes together under a godly kingdom of learned men who practiced restraint and led for the benefit of the realm. His son Edward fullfilled that dream after Alfred's death. Alfred also established the English Navy, and gave it its character of pursuing tactical efficiency through planning, training, and better design.
"The author of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle related that Alfred's ships were larger, swifter, steadier and rode higher in the water than either Danish or Frisian ships. It is probable that, under the classical tutelage of Asser, Alfred utilised the design of Greek and Roman warships, with high sides, designed for fighting rather than for navigation."

But what sets Alfred apart was his re-organization of Wessex power from a top down monarchy, to a bottom up federation of local tribal leaders who could provide forces and taxes when needed. This was the Burghal system of fortifications and lordships that gave us the English shires and the US counties.
"Alfred's burhs (of which twenty-two developed into boroughs.[g][67]) ranged from former Roman towns, such as Winchester, where the stone walls were repaired and ditches added, to massive earthen walls surrounded by wide ditches, probably reinforced with wooden revetments and palisades, such as at Burpham in West Sussex.[69][70] The size of the burhs ranged from tiny outposts such as Pilton in Devon, to large fortifications in established towns, the largest being at Winchester.[71]

"A contemporary document now known as the Burghal Hidage provides an insight into how the system worked. It lists the hidage for each of the fortified towns contained in the document. For example, Wallingford had a hidage of 2,400, which meant that the landowners there were responsible for supplying and feeding 2,400 men, the number sufficient for maintaining 9,900 feet (3.0 kilometres) of wall.[72] A total of 27,071 soldiers were needed, approximately one in four of all the free men in Wessex.[73] Many of the burhs were twin towns that straddled a river and were connected by a fortified bridge, like those built by Charles the Bald a generation before.[59] The double-burh blocked passage on the river, forcing Viking ships to navigate under a garrisoned bridge lined with men armed with stones, spears, or arrows. Other burhs were sited near fortified royal villas, allowing the king better control over his strongholds.[74]

"The burhs were connected by a road system maintained for army use (known as herepaths). These roads would allow an army to be quickly assembled, sometimes from more than one burh, to confront the Viking invader.[75] This network posed significant obstacles to Viking invaders, especially those laden with booty. The system threatened Viking routes and communications making it far more dangerous for them. The Vikings lacked the equipment for a siege against a burh and a developed doctrine of siegecraft, having tailored their methods of fighting to rapid strikes and unimpeded retreats to well-defended fortifications. The only means left to them was to starve the burh into submission but this gave the king time to send his mobile field army or garrisons from neighbouring burhs along the army roads. In such cases the Vikings were extremely vulnerable to pursuit by the king's joint military forces.[76] Alfred's burh system posed such a formidable challenge against Viking attack that when the Vikings returned in 892 and stormed a half-made, poorly garrisoned fortress up the Lympne estuary in Kent, the Anglo-Saxons were able to limit their penetration to the outer frontiers of Wessex and Mercia.[77]

"Alfred's burghal system was revolutionary in its strategic conception and potentially expensive in its execution. His contemporary biographer Asser wrote that many nobles balked at the new demands placed upon them even though they were for "the common needs of the kingdom""

And thus was born the Magna Carta, the English Civil War, the American Revolution, the Declaration of independence and the US Constitution, gradually over time.

In the final analysis, Alfred's creation, the land of England has survived being conquered by Norman adventurers and the many variations of fate and misfortune, because Alfred's cultural bonds have been so strong and durable.
 
Interesting thread.
Some notes. Cromwell might figure among great heads of state. It was Cornwallis whom Washington confronted with French aid.
Bismark probably deserves a place.
 
Overlooking Napoleon is arguably a mistake. One reason is his incredible generalship in so many situations. The other is that, as head of state, he also ran an empire that changed European and world history. If the true ideas of the French Revolution had been pursued in conquered areas, Europe would have been unified and pacified for generations. As it was, his tactical brilliance was doomed by his massive strategic errors. Strategic, that is, not only in arms but in diplomacy. The reshuffling of Europe that he provoked led inexorably to two gigantic wars.
 
Interesting thread.
Some notes. Cromwell might figure among great heads of state. It was Cornwallis whom Washington confronted with French aid.
Bismark probably deserves a place.
Cromwell's legacy was abruptly ended upon his death and loss of power and his corpse drawn and quartered. He had become among the most truly hated by his own countrymen for his tyranny.

I meant Cornwallis, not Cromwell, goofy me, but thanks for pointing that out.

Bismark is a worthy mention for many reasons, but he was not head of state, the Kaisar was, who later fired him.
 
Lincoln was a thug and a tyrant.
Nonsense. He saved our nation from self destruction.

I know results dont really matter to you Anarcho-Libertarians, but results matter for the rest of us.

You may return to your computer universe now where eerything works according to your ideological dictates.
 
Overlooking Napoleon is arguably a mistake. One reason is his incredible generalship in so many situations. The other is that, as head of state, he also ran an empire that changed European and world history. If the true ideas of the French Revolution had been pursued in conquered areas, Europe would have been unified and pacified for generations. As it was, his tactical brilliance was doomed by his massive strategic errors. Strategic, that is, not only in arms but in diplomacy. The reshuffling of Europe that he provoked led inexorably to two gigantic wars.
I didnt overlook Napoleon, as he did have a huge impact, but I left him out because he FAILED. He lost his wars in the end and his legacy was destroyed all except for his myth which remained for French secular Nationalists used to replace Joan of Arc.
 
Lincoln was a thug and a tyrant.
Nonsense. He saved our nation from self destruction.

I know results dont really matter to you Anarcho-Libertarians, but results matter for the rest of us.

You may return to your computer universe now where eerything works according to your ideological dictates.
Oh bullshit....His war was the ultimate act of political vanity.....The southern states could have gone theoir own way and little to nothing would have come of it.
 
Oh bullshit....His war was the ultimate act of political vanity.....The southern states could have gone theoir own way and little to nothing would have come of it.
Saving the Union was the ultimate act of political vanity?

It is well and good that you Anarcho-libertarians cant grasp how deranged you sound, like you were Dimocrat partisans from the mirror Dimension, lol.
 

Forum List

Back
Top