There have been many comments, articles, entries about how BAD the current leadership in the world is.
I am curious to know from everyone who they think was THE BEST LEADER in history- Whether it was of a political movement, a nation, an empire.
What makes them great in your eyes and do their leadership qualities affect how you view and judge those in power today? Even if they were not a popular leader or even if they were misguided but had good intentions, please feel free to bring it up. What ideals did they have that you liked.
This is not a open call for a debate about who was the best- I'd like everyone to offer their own opinion without fear of criticism.
*note* "Best" as noted below- in what i'm looking for here- is how you personally define that term for yourself. Was the best leader in your opinion someone who conquerored and held onto territory for the longest- or was it the leader who was the most benevolent to their people. Were they the "best" because they created a legacy or simply because they were at the right place and at the right time and stepped up?
Tequila Rose
33 Comments
The "best" leader in terms of creating an empire? Alexander the Great and the Roman emperor Trajan.
Now ask me who the worst leader in history is. I won't hesitate with that answer...
lol
My picks include Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Peter Benenson (Amnesty), Marla Ruzicka (died in Iraq trying to help orphaned children), Jimmy Carter (his work for Habitat, Human Rights), Oprah (her work to help children), and the list goes on and on and on and on and on...(too many to list)
I particularly like people who stand up for human rights, children and real freedom of speech. I tend to admire peaceful activists and people with more progressive values.
she belongs in that list as well
As to who I would nominate, I'm thinking of great teachers and mentors I've had. Nobody famous. You don't need fame to be a great leader.
Now before you cry 'I meant a REAL leader', let me elucidate.King Arthur has, to my satisfaction, been identified as a warleader from the Anglesea area of Wales. He was not a king, not even of 'royal' blood, but the leader of the warband of a local baron ('Pendragon', The Definitive Account Of The Origins Of Arthur. Steve Blake & Scott LLoyd, Rider Books, 2002).
Arthur did not unite all England. He did not have a round table. Whether there was a Lancelot is doubtful (or if there was, he was not called that), but Arthur did exist. And stories of his exploits in the feudal environment in which he lived have survived, albeit glamourised and embellished.
Whilst his birth and death years cannot be pinpointed precisely, he lived in the 6th C AD. That's 1500 years ago. Not perhaps, as long ago as Jesus, Moses, any of the Roman Emperors or Great Alex, but a 'best' leader because....
The 'King Arthur' story, along with its messages, morals and promises of hope, is known around the world - by children as well as adults. In the main, Roman Emperors (et al) are only known of (and appreciated by) adults (and hated of course by 15 year old History Students). King Arthur represents England and all that is English, without, I might add, any promotion of the notion that English is best, despite being Welsh, lol.
The King Arthur story as we know it is a myth, of course. But what makes a myth? Assume for a moment, that you do something that is considered to be 'heroic'. It doesn't matter what that something is. You are labelled a Hero. After you die, you're still a hero until the last person that actually remembers you being alive dies. You then become a legend. After the last person (assuming this is not written down, or, if it is, the writing is lost or destroyed) who remembers someone being alive who remembered you when you were alive has gone, you become a myth.
And so, with Arthur. Myths get embellished; the past is always 'the golden age' and historic heroes bigger than normal.
What bothered me (for I'd always hoped that Arthur was Pagan), was that Arthur, it would seem, was a Christian and although the evidence for that may be debateable, it would appear that he helped spread Christianity (perhaps by dubious means, but hey, it was the 6th Century) through Northern Wales. But that's irrelevant.'King' Arthur is my bestest hero because 1500 years after his death, his story, grown in the telling, still inpires great things in both adults and children.
BTW. If you would like to get a 'feel' for the times of Arthur, read Katherine Kerr's Deverry series. It's fiction, yes, but a great read.
If all of that isn't real then i would like to see ME as world leader becuase i think i could do better at saying yes than anyone here . try me
As for seeing you as world leader, well I'm sure that we all have thought 'if I was in charge, it would be a better world because....' I know I have.
Both had to fight hard to earn respect from the world around them. They both had to face the fracticious nature of the Church. Although Joan would eventually lose that battle and be executed at a very early age- the fact that in her brief life span she commanded the french army- is amazing and thought provoking.
And Elizabeth- starting young herself- the bastard child of henry VIII- stood by her convictions that the nation should be allowed to worship as they feel. She brought the golden age even though she had to leave her personal life behind her and rise above it all to become divine-like.
I am not condoning his politics & his tactics as a general left alot to be desired etc. But as a leader and an inspiration he's up there with the best.
I would also say Julius Caesar is one to rate, and if you want to go fictional I'd probably say Aruthur Duke of Crydee then Krondor from the Magician series of books.
BTW snak you would be better off reading Taliesin, Merlin, Arthur and Pendragon by Stephen Lawhead. The Deverry Cycle and subequent books by Katherine Kerr revolve too much around the possibilities of reincarnation/ past lives and karma to get a proper feel for the times.
Second place for best leader - I'm pretty fond of Sandra Day O'Connor. While she wasn't a political figurehead, her place on the US Supreme Court as the first Woman Justice, and her opinions on tough legal and political subjects were often well-thought out, logical, and firmly routed in the needs of the people.
but hey that's just my humble two cents....
http://www.rollingstone.c...orst_president_in_history
i really agree with this leading historians"best" and "worst" leaders of the usa - past and present.
:)
Hey you know AdGuy always gets the last word! ;)