Your Favorite Ruler

[BOOM headshot65]

So, escapist, who is you favorite ruler. They can be from any country, any time period, any Ideoligy.

For me, it is a tie between Otto Van Bismarck and Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Bismarck because he forged the nation of Germany from 13 warring states, and turned it into a superpower. He realised that industrial might and military might were vital to the state. He also realised when something was about to become very bad. I know he tried to tell Kaiser Wilhelm that they shouldnt sign treaties because he forsaw WW1 spiraling out of control due to run away treaties (you know, like what happened in real life)

As For Eisenhower, He realised that the American military could help protect the world and bring prosperity to America. He had a military budget of 60% of federal spending, and America has never been more prosperious. He also took the good Idea of the Interstate Highway system from Germany to help defend America. (Fun Fact: The Interstate in America was not designed for civilian uses. It was designed for the military. That is whey there are long streches of reinforced roadway. They are makeshift bomber runways.) Plus, he realised that as a politian, there are some thing you comprimise on, and others you stay rock solid on, and know when to do either is the trick to leadership. Plus, he was the first to really push the end of Racism in America, when he sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas to force the schools to intergrate after they were told to by the supreme court...10 years earlier.

 

[Saladfork]

I agree with Bismarck, he was awesome.

Lessee...
Napolean Bonapart
Gaius Julius Ceaser
Vladamir Lenin

And for a bit of national pride, Pierre Trudeau.

There are a lot more, I'm sure, but they're who I came up with off the top of my head.

 

[Logiclul]

Hitler and Napoleon were two brilliantly intelligent leaders that we could all learn from. Those men did what would seem unfathomable without them. The tasks they executed, no matter how immoral you may think they are, were glorious, and in retrospect were elegant franchises.

Between the two, I can not decide.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Bismarck because he forged the nation of Germany from 13 warring states, and turned it into a superpower. He realised that industrial might and military might were vital to the state. He also realised when something was about to become very bad. I know he tried to tell Kaiser Wilhelm that they shouldnt sign treaties because he forsaw WW1 spiraling out of control due to run away treaties (you know, like what happened in real life)

While I agree with you... sort of, Bismarck has to share some (a lot IMO) of the blame for WWI. By his own admission, he never thought that he would serve under three Emperors and that was where he went wrong. Knowing that Frederick III was an anglophilic liberal (as were many of the senior military figures, rather ironically), Bismarck needed the Crown Prince (when he was such) out of politics as he was considered a liberal saboteur (often loudly voicing his disagreements in the Diet, pre-Reich and otherwise, both to Bismarck and to his father), though he was not without his supporters, most notable the Princess Royal (i.e. the Empress Frederick). To subvert him, Bismarck alienated Wilhelm (the Younger) against his father by instilling too fervent a nationalistic ideal in the young prince (German pride, anti-French sentiment, stoking the rivalry with Britain, and almost extreme conservatism which meant suppressing the Poles and the more liberal factions of the north German nobility). Bismarck wasn't to know that Frederick III's reign lasted less than a hundred days and so he was left to rue his folly when he was sacked within three years and turned for help to the one person who curried no favour whatsoever with her son (because she was 'the liberal Englishwoman'). Also, every King in and King of Prussia spoke Polish as both a sign of solidarity with their eastern provinces and one-upmanship against Austria (who, until the late nineteenth century, still wanted Silesia back). That was, until Wilhelm, who didn't learn it, nor did he have any interest in doing so (in stark contrast with Frederick II, who disdained the Poles, but still learnt Polish because he knew it would be politically beneficial to do so).

Never in such a way has an empire risen and fallen because of one man.

Lessee...
Napolean Bonapart

He had the biggest fault of overambition... that and getting too full of himself (though both may perhaps be justified in light of the first five coalitions... and Austerlitz in particular).

Gaius Julius Ceaser

I see your Julius Caesar and raise you:

OT: Augustus Caesar - probably the original imperial statesman. He obtained power after quite a period of political upheaval and did so at virtually no expense to himself, dealing with the Triumvirate with what would appear to be consummate ease. He ruled over the Roman Empire when it was expanding very quickly and he knew how far and how fast the empire could go. Also, his ability to manipulate the plebeian class into keeping him on as Consul/Dictator/Princeps/Pontifex Maximus etc. etc. was very shrewd of him. His military mistakes are confined only to Germania (though debatably, one the mistake was not his, and two, he dealt with the mistake very well), while his political mistakes are borderline non-existent (good example being Parthia... after Crassus and subsequent failures), though perhaps his succession leaves something to be desired. While Tiberius was a fair emperor, he was quite ineffectual.

And Tokugawa Ieyasu... *snrk*

 

[Kvaedi]

Hammurabi. The idea of the Hammurabi Code sits well with me, in that it was written so that anyone could go find the giant stone tablets it was written on, and know EXACTLY what the law said for their situation, no lawyers pulling strings, no nonsense.

The laws are absolutely barbaric by today's standards, but one part I admire is the placement of different responsibility on different social classes. While I don't like the idea of a nobility, and certainly not of a slave class, but if they do exist, the least the ruler can do is make the rich accountable for their actions, which Hammurabi's Code did very well.

In court, people defended themselves, no lawyers, no nonsense. Many of the laws were superstitious, ridiculous, cruel, which is why it is a little disturbing I find more to like in their simplicity than my country's current monstrosity of a legal system.

 

[JoJo]

Any time period eh?

I've always had a liking for rulers from the classic Chinese period of history, such as this one:

Spoiler

However some of the ones from the early 20th century are pretty cool too, for example:

Spoiler

 

[SckizoBoy]

Bismarck because he forged the nation of Germany from 13 warring states, and turned it into a superpower.

Huh... only just occurred to me... but 13?! Pssh, it was either six (the ones who had militaries that actually did things) or twenty-six (four kingdoms, six grand-duchies, five duchies, seven principalities, three free cities and one Imperial province) and the Imperial province is debatable, 'nicked' from the French as it was...

 

[BOOM headshot65]

Bismarck because he forged the nation of Germany from 13 warring states, and turned it into a superpower.

Huh... only just occurred to me... but 13?! Pssh, it was either six (the ones who had militaries that actually did things) or twenty-six (four kingdoms, six grand-duchies, five duchies, seven principalities, three free cities and one Imperial province) and the Imperial province is debatable, 'nicked' from the French as it was...

Oh. Well, I was going off what my german teacher had told me. What ever. The fact remains he took warring states and united them into a force to recken with that all of Europe banned together to destroy. Thats why German took the blame for WW1 even though Austrio-Hungry started it and Serbia started it.

 

[MasterOfHisOwnDomain]

Suleiman the Magnificent - Led the Ottoman Empire for 46 years, expanding it into Hungary and Rhodes and overseeing major economic, political and legal reforms. If he hadn't lost the Siege of Vienna, then European and world history would have been very different.

Edward III of England - Transformed England from a puny, backwards military force into something that consistently battered the foremost power of Europe, France, and all the while managing to recover from the Black Death and transform the powers of Parliament.

 

[Rowan93]

Ghengis Khan, because he was a badass mofo who just could not be stopped. I would suggest a leader who actually did some good for humanity, but I'm not sure I could really point them out since they're all politicians who had to compromise and so a whole lot of leaders have their downsides in terms of actual constructive progress they did.