Here is a question.Who was the greatest leader in history?I mean there is probably many different
ways to look at all of them,and lots of good leaders but who do you think was the Best.
In my opinion the greatest leader was Genghis Khan. The man forged a nomadic people into one of the greatest armies of the world,creating one of (if not the) largest Empires in history!While Genghis was in command the Empire was organized, and expanding.He even wrote out the Great Yasa.(disputably the only true Meritocracy in the World)
comments anyone?
P.S:feel free to disagree
I think you chose a good one I'd haft to think about it befor I made a choce though.
ReplyDeleteHmmm... not sure. The khan is a good one to start with though.
ReplyDeleteI keep hitting dead ends on this one. I mean sure Genghis Khan was great but haw would he have done vs. Hannibal or in WW1. And would you be greater if you were the most successful agenst a bunch of idiots or if you held your own in a grope of geniuses. I’m not just saying we can never know . I’m just thinking out loud.
ReplyDeleteGood point Rennuke.I would have to say that we would rate the leaders by their ability and their circumstances.For example, Genghis Khan's enemies were no slouches,advanced China,barbarian Kiev,and even the zealous Turks,no one would have guessed that a recently patched together horseman nation would have been able to conquer(much less administer!)the largest land based empire in history.As for the era,the mongols utilized a form of horse archer "Blitzkrieg", given modern weapons they would have dominated.(a form of warfare organized by The Great Khan)
ReplyDeleteBut NONE of these accomplishments would have been done without Genghis.The Mongols had been disciplined,Genghis turned that into Drive,The Mongols had learned how to make do with little,Genghis taught them how to turn that "little" into enough to conquer,and the Mongols had ambition,The Great Khan turned that to loyalty.In my opinion Genghis would have been a leader in any time or nation,(a ten-year old orphan risen to Khanship)and I believe that at any time great leaders will rise to a position of influence.granted that circumstances do play a important part in shaping the man in the position.
That being said I also have thought of another prestigious persona to put on this post.
Phillip II of France(or Phillip Augustus) was perhaps, in my opinion, the greatest Medieval King,not only of France,but of any European country.Despite years of strengthening,and some victories,the King of France was King in little more than name.The nobles refused to even listen to his directives.(even while the English controlled half of France)So when rambunctious Phillip II came to the throne he was faced with a monumental task.He rose to the challenge with vigor soon associated to him, and his reign.First,he consolidated his fiefs,to provide a strong economic base.Second,he regained some lost dignity by slapping down a few,rebellious,Nobles.Next,The shrewd young king used the popular interest in the Third Crusade,not only to gain concessions from the papacy,but also to have his greatest threat Richard the Lionhearted contribute troops and himself to accompany him to the Holy Land.This is considered the masterstroke of Phillips reign,while he and Richard were gone the wily Phillip aided the English king's rebellious,younger,brother king John.(too late to be known as John the First!et cetera)so when Phillip returned prematurely from the Third Crusade(leaving a besieged Richard)he came back to find a ruined English nation, wrecked by rebellious Nobles,a mediocre usurper as king,and a dirty struggle with the strongest Pope in history,Innocent the III.Needless to say Phillip wiped out the English.All in all Phillip Augustus is widely considered to be the Father of France,he gave Honor to the kingship(power as well),he made France THE premier Catholic country, and he saved the the country from the English.
P.S:Feel free to disagree I enjoy a good debate.:)
so did Hitler steal the khan's tactic? Only hitler had tanks and ammo. And khan had horse power and arrows.
ReplyDeletePretty much.Hitler did not invent any part of his madness,but stole and corrupted the ideas of others.The "blitzkrieg" tactic was nothing new,small,mobile,organized groups,used in conjunction to quickly invade,overwhelm,and pick apart enemies.
ReplyDeleteI think Gryphon is right the revolutionary thing about the “blitzkrieg” was that for the first time the air force and army are used as a joint unit, and armor was used as its own entity instead of as an infantry weapon
ReplyDeleteRight! Until Japan tagged the U.S. in, and then it was all over :) Well, I suppose the British air force had something to do with it also.
ReplyDeleteYou better believe they had something to do with it!! Gramps accompanied the RAF as an American!!
ReplyDelete1939-45:BRITS ROCK!!!!!
ReplyDelete