Weird political leadership questions

Queen Cleopatra. She managed to keep her empire independent even when vastly outnumbered, until she had the bad luck to bet on the wrong person to support in a Roman civil war.

Queen Hatshepsut. Being able to stay Pharaoh in pre-Persian-conquest was extremely hard, most female Pharaohs were quickly disposed in a coup or civil war.

Maria Theresa of Austria.

Saint Olga of Kiev. The 'Saint' part is debatable, but she was really bad-ass if the stories are true. She was the wife of an early ruler of Russia. Another tribe, the Drevlians, killed her husband and she wanted revenge...

She invited the most important men of the tribe to marry her, but when they arrived she buried them all alive.
Then she sent a message to the tribe that she had accepted the offer of one of them, and now they sent another ruler with company...
She had them burnt alive in a bathhouse.
Then she sent a message that tragedy had struck and she invited the rest of the tribe for a funeral party.
After the tribe was drunk, her soldiers killed them all.

Now the Drevlians knew what she had done, they wanted peace. But Olga was still in a mood for revenge..

She went to their capital, but said she would accept their surrender.. If every household would give her a bird in return. The Drevlians were happy of course to avoid slaughter and accepted.

In the night, her soldiers tied a lump of burning material to each bird and released them. The birds flew back to their nests, and the city went up in flames. All surviving Drevlians were killed or enslaved after.

And so ended the story of the bloody revenge of Olga of Kiev.

 

The thing with hitler was he was completely inept but had all the luck in the world. Notably when he invaded austria, 75% of all his armoured vehicles broke down. When he invaded poland his men were outnumbered 5:1 on the french border yet all the allies did was drop propaganda toilet roll on germany, we gifted him czechoslovakia without a fight which gave him weapons production capacity equal to 1/3 of the british empire)... I think hwere his ineptitude becomes very obvious is when he ordered all the german armour divisions outside stalingrad to enter the city, allowing them to be encircled and defeated.

Dont know much about the rest, but hitler was a plum.

---------- Post added 4th Jun 2014 at 03:45 PM ----------

The thing with hitler was he was completely inept but had all the luck in the world. Notably when he invaded austria, 75% of all his armoured vehicles broke down. When he invaded poland his men were outnumbered 5:1 on the french border yet all the allies did was drop propaganda toilet roll on germany, we gifted him czechoslovakia without a fight which gave him weapons production capacity equal to 1/3 of the british empire)... I think hwere his ineptitude becomes very obvious is when he ordered all the german armour divisions outside stalingrad to enter the city, allowing them to be encircled and defeated.

Dont know much about the rest, but hitler was a plum.

 

I will probably get flak for this, but I don't think Abraham Lincoln was as great as history had made him out to be. He was good, don't get me wrong, but he was an opportunist. A lot of people think him this great man who wanted to end slavery, but he only freed the slaves in the areas not under Union-occupation. He was even said to want to ship all the slaves back to Africa, so as to avoid anything like this happening again. While we have to understand the context of the situation in those days, we can't hold this totally against him, but for a man so many cite as brave and willing to take risks, such action (or lack of) kind of speaks against him.

Would I place Lincoln in the top tier? Well, how many are in this top tier? 10? 20? 30? 100?

Lincoln would, for sure, make it into the Top 100. It is likely he'd make it into the Top 30, and possibly he could make it into the Top 20. As for Top 10, I don't think I, personally, could place him there.

Ah, the Mustachioed One. Adolf Hitler is considered great for his speech and political organization skills, and for good reason. He could mesmerize a nation, and he kept his potential rivals divided and weak, so much so they would never truly ever challenge his authority. Keep in mind, he was able to get so much by just being defiant. He defied the terms imposed upon the German nation following World War I, he gained the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia with diplomacy, he annexed Austria with boldness, and he was able to knock out Denmark, Norway, and France in less than a season. Keep in mind, while Denmark and Norway weren't on the same level as, say, France, the Germans had to content with their own setbacks, a resistance movement, and the British interfering. The fact Hitler was able to 'see' these openings speaks volumes of the man, at least in the beginning of the war. Taking out France, who in the previous world war, had been the scene to one of the most violent and brutal wars, and in such lightning speed, not only wowed and shocked the world, it gave legitimacy to Hitler's ambitions. From here on out, he was practically untouchable. He was an opportunist, but what sets him apart from Lincoln is, Hitler was willing to defy the world to get what he wanted, while Lincoln was willing to sabotage the opposition to get what was needed.

Hitler lost his edge when he tried to take on the Soviet Union, and didn't finish off the British before hand. If he had kept his pact with Stalin, reinforced Rommel in North Africa, it is possible the Afrika Korps, with Italian aid, would have smashed the British in Egypt and pushed into the Middle East. It is likely, Turkey, would have complied with the Axis, and allowed the Germans access to march through the country, to join up. This would, naturally, put the Axis in a better position to obtain oil, and to get the Caucus regions Hitler was so obsessed with obtaining. He'd be in a better position, too, with the Imperial Japanese, and it is possible they could have sandwiched the British out of Asia. But the fact Hitler did not do this, just goes to show, he became over confident and delusional. From here on, you can't attribute much to Hitler, as he became a senile buffoon. Though he did have one bizarre moment of clarity, he actually wanted to watch the beaches of Normandy, when the rumors of a massive Allied invasion was flowing through Nazi-occupied Europe. Other than that, he lost what made him successful from late 1941 until his end, and this sparred the world from experiencing a Nazi victory.

As for who I would suggest for fantastic female leaders. Obviously, Cleopatra, as has been mentioned. I'd say Joan of Arc, for the simple fact she was young and, quite capable, of kicking serious ass. Zenobia, too, for just being ridiculously capable when it came to smashing others. Maragret of Anjou is worth considering, too, because she ruled silently, when her husband was considered too insane and unfit to officially rule.

 

To be fair, Hitler WAS a good leader and politician, he was just rat-shit insane. If he'd kept his head out of the genocide and war game he would be known for turning Germany around...

 

1) With people like Lincoln, of course they deserve their place in history; social movements have more long-term significance than the person of an emperor. That sort of military-leaders-treaties-dates history leads to woeful misunderstandings, and the fact that the military history of Rome is more famous than its culture, social beliefs, smaller politics, and technology is one of the reasons why most people don't understand Rome, me included. Back to Lincoln, yes, he definitely deserves a page in history, but that page needs to be critical; he was still a racist to a great extent, and he was also not a lone instigator; the movements leading up to emancipation and the lives of slaves and their movements for freedom cannot be downplayed by a white man signing a paper, which is too often how history is taught.

2) Hitler was a fool. While a politically able man (but his popularity existed only through first using the fears of the hungry crowds, then an entire state to bolster his image, which eventually proved not enough), he was a military idiot, unable to form effective policies on his own, treated Germany as a sort of private estate, had no understanding of economy (the massive economic efforts had to eternally expand; there was no depth to them, which guaranteed inevitable collapse). Anyone who tries to make an alliance with the greatest power of the time by sending Ribbentrop, refusing to withdraw him when he offended everyone in the UK with is arrogance and ignorance, then making Ribbentrop foreign minister is not a good head of state, either. Invading Russia out of ideology thinking it would also help his war effort (trade was more productive giving oil and agriculture to Germany from Russia), then promising Japan off-hand, not consulting any of his own military or career diplomats, the support of Germany against the United States, already dangerous enough as a non-belligerent.

Hitler wasn't a good leader, ever. If anything, I think we've absorbed the propaganda; the sheer desperation, racism, and nationalistic aspects of Germany were what let him get to power. His political finesse was pathetic, he actually believed his own lies about Judaism. I consider any belief in Hitler being a great leader "even if they don't agree with him" (that's always the pathetic excuse) as extreme ignorance or an act of moral violence - the only thing he did really do well was fuelling anti-Semitism and genocide to an industrialised level. Hitler, for all practical purposes, was incapable. A corporal making himself Commander in Chief while having no higher military training may have put the generals in line for a while, but it also led to Germany's military destruction in large ways (such as the idiocy at Stalingrad and the preceding campaign which divided troops to take more than they could chew of South Russia)

3) Women leaders such as Catherine the Great are important, but more "lowly" figures have their importance, too. I consider the first woman to cry "aux Bastille" to be equally as important as the aristocrats, and probably more lasting in legacy. Another example, Rosa Luxemburg was a renowned leader, flawed, but probably recorded more accurately than queens who had state apparatuses to manage their legacy in flattering terms. Some official leaders probably are as important as they're written; Golda Meir is an Israeli national hero, and she definitely deserves her page in history.

 

What's weird, is that I wouldn't put anyone on the list.

I hate the idea of leaders, and being led, as if I were some kind of sheep, or something.

Just terms like 'leadership' conference send shivers down my spine. But people seem to get really caught up in this whole hierarchy thing, sort of like colonies of ants, only more destructive.

 

Loved this

 

Couldn't have put it any better, well said(!)

 

1. when you think of ALL of history and it's leaders like FDR or Caeser and the like...do you believe Lincoln deserves a spot in the all tiem greatest leaders list? Does Lincoln belong the sides of great emperors and kings and queens? Why or why not?

I think Lincoln was a great leader, he unified a divided country and abolished slavery. He's definitely one of the best.

2. On that same note, on this website I was on, it listed Hitler as one of the greatest leaders. Obviously we all know what happened under his leadership, but Germany flourished for some time and he was severely Nationalist. What do you feel about him being on this list?

I think I have a different definition of a great leader than they do. Just because they where good at leading doesn't make someone great. If they had a positive effect on their people, that makes them great.

3. Finally, when you think of amazing female leaders, who comes to mind? Do you think Boudica? Queen Catherine?

I think of Coco Chanel. Does that count?

 

leaders aren't perfect they are only human, but that's no excuse either, for certain behaviors
personally i go by all their actions if good out weights the bad

Lincoln violated the constitution by imprisoning people without trial BUT he got this country though the worst part in history, but still in modern day terms he would be considered racist based on this quote:
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”
my opinion: better leader than most (my dad says other wise though)

Hitler may have cleaned up Germany's economy BUT that doesn't make up for killing millions of people and brain washing a country
my opinion: bad leader

Female leaders i think have been biased based on their gender and it focuses on one side the good or bad...

 

1. Lincoln probably should replace FDR

2. Hitler had willingly nationalist people to rule over, so he had order

3. Queen Victoria; Margaret Thatcher; Angela Merkel