Inappropriate Leaders

[History Guy]

Yes, Jason, Franz Sigel was probably the worst general ever during the war, but he cracks me up.

It's not Grant's manuevering skills that bugs me, but his battle plans. Had Lee fought battles like Grant (and he did for a short period, i.e. the Seven Days, and again at Gettysburg) he would have lost every single battle he ever fought.

[Jason]

Gettysburg was also obviously a mark on Lee, although people are at pains to emphasize how much stress he was under at that point.

The maneuver aspect of Grant is more important than Lee's tactics... Ultimately, what good is a chancellorsville against someone like Grant? What is really so lovely about Lee? There were no very good grand plans, nothing more than tactical fireworks and taking advantage of Northern leadership difficulties, no?

[cavebear]

For what it's worth...

Rome Claudbicatius

Greece Imperfectikles

Germany Frederick the Fat

China Xuanwallwillsaveus

Japan Divinewindoffart

India Mahatmacoat

Aztecs Giveemgold

Iroquois Hihowareya

Egypt Meoutofabuck

Babylon Five

Russia Peter the Little

America James Buchanan

France Ill Dolphin

Persia Rugsale

Zulu …CharlieBravoAlpha

Britain Ethelred the Unready

Heh-heh, best I could do...

[cavebear]

Hey, about Grant and Lee...

Lee was a tactical genious, but Grant was a strategic one.

And Sigel was very brave, and I'll leave it at that.

[Barnacle Bill]

Reading this thread, there seems to be three conflicting definitions of "bad" leaders:

1) "Evil"
2) "Incompetent", which cascades into
a) "made policy decisions harmful to the state in question"
b) "was ineffective at getting his/her policy proposals enacted"
c) "made political decisions harmful to his/her own career"
3) The poster doesn't like the leader's political ideology.

#3 seems to apply only to leaders in living memory and to primarily be from posters who are so partisan that they confuse it with #1 and/or #2. #3 is in fact invalid as a criteria and annoying to read, and should be banished from the discussion. I would further submit that leaders of such recent vintage are too recent to get anything like a dispassionate judgement of history, and should therefore be excluded altogether. I would propose to exclude any leader who initially took office as the chief executive of his/her own country AFTER the end of WWII.

So the question remains whether #1 or #2 is to be the criteria, and if #2 then whether 2c without also 2a/b is qualifying.

[Libertarian]

Including Clinton is pointless. His judicial and sexual escapades are historically insignificant - I don't want to get into a debate on U.S. politics under any circumstances, it's like debating theology, but ranking him (or Nixon to be truthful) with the kind of "whoops" presidents like Buchanan or Johnson just comes from a lack of historical perspective.

Yeah, but a graphic of Clinton with a big cigar in his mouth would be just too funny. For America, I suggest Emporer Roosevelt, who single-handedly moved America from (relatively) libertarian to authoritarian.

[Fresno]

Originally posted by Barnacle Bill
Reading this thread, there seems to be three conflicting definitions of "bad" leaders:

1) "Evil"
2) "Incompetent", which cascades into
a) "made policy decisions harmful to the state in question"
b) "was ineffective at getting his/her policy proposals enacted"
c) "made political decisions harmful to his/her own career"
3) The poster doesn't like the leader's political ideology.

So the question remains whether #1 or #2 is to be the criteria, and if #2 then whether 2c without also 2a/b is qualifying.

We all agree which leaders are "Evil" (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, ...). therefore I think an "Evil leaders thread" would be quite pointless.

I think we should start new threads concerning the other points. Mrbill, as starter of this thread, how do you think about this?

[davwhitt]

Originally posted by Libertarian


Yeah, but a graphic of Clinton with a big cigar in his mouth would be just too funny. For America, I suggest Emporer Roosevelt, who single-handedly moved America from (relatively) libertarian to authoritarian.

Yeah, it's a shame too because Hoover's libertarian policies were doing such a wonderful job of getting the US out of the depression. Seriously though Roosevelt did pass some authoritarian measures like detaining people w/o due process, supporting foreign dictators, killing civilians with mass bombings of enemy cities, and restricting civil liberties at home - just like Bush is doing now. Isn't progress amazing!

[Jason]

There are lots of forums for political bickering and revisionist history, folks.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by davwhitt

Yeah, it's a shame too because Hoover's libertarian policies were doing such a wonderful job of getting the US out of the depression. Seriously though Roosevelt did pass some authoritarian measures like detaining people w/o due process, supporting foreign dictators, killing civilians with mass bombings of enemy cities, and restricting civil liberties at home - just like Bush is doing now. Isn't progress amazing!

Yeah, but Roosevelt had no excuse...I mean you'd think there was a war on....

[Dr. Nick]

As to France, I'm thinking Petain for Vichy France maybe...

[mrbilll]

What I had in mind was the most counter-intuitive choice for the stereotypical "great leader" of a civ. The effect was supposed to be humorous (Nixon) and/or politically incorrect (Hitler).

But just the same, I'm fascinated by the turns this thread has taken, and by how SERIOUS some people are about their choices.

Any history buff must suspect that there's an especially hot corner of h**l reserved for kings and emperors- there are plenty of bad guys to choose from. Funny ones, like that poofter, Edward II, are tougher to come up with, IMHO.

[Wulfram]

Originally posted by mrbilll
What I had in mind was the most counter-intuitive choice for the stereotypical "great leader" of a civ. The effect was supposed to be humorous (Nixon) and/or politically incorrect (Hitler).

But just the same, I'm fascinated by the turns this thread has taken, and by how SERIOUS some people are about their choices.

Any history buff must suspect that there's an especially hot corner of h**l reserved for kings and emperors- there are plenty of bad guys to choose from. Funny ones, like that poofter, Edward II, are tougher to come up with, IMHO.

Very true. As Machiavelli said

"I desire to go to hell and not to heaven. In the former place I shall enjoy the company of Popes, Kings and Princes, while in the latter are only beggars, monks and apostles."

[Bad Ax]

Hmm... some choices are obvious, others are explained...

America: EVIL: Andrew Jackson
Perhaps the only American leader who can truly be considered to be evil. A barbarian who loved nothing more than to ignore already unfair treaties and sent thousands of American natives to their deaths OUTSIDE of wartime. Not to mention his attitude towards the Constitution, which was apparently that it was for use as toilet paper.
STUPID: Herbert Hoover
FUNNY: Nixon

Germany: EVIL: Hitler
STUPID: Mad King Ludwig isn't bad.
FUNNY: Ludwig

France: EVIL: Napoleon. Maybe not entirely evil, but sufficiently priggish and annoying to satisfy anyone. Annoying Corsican prig.
STUPID: Louis XVI. Or Marie Antoinette. Cake, anyone?
FUNNY: Louis XIV

England: EVIL: Hrm... Oliver Cromwell?
STUPID: Neville, Neville, Neville. So sad. George III might also be a good choice.
FUNNY: George III also good here. Also perhaps John Cleese -- not a ruler, but a funny guy.

Zulus: EVIL: Shaka
STUPID: Cetshwayo (I think that's how it's spelled), who lost the Zulu nation to the Brits (despite a good showing at Isandhlwana).
FUNNY: There is nothing funny about Zulus.

Greeks: EVIL: Alcibiades
STUPID: Any number of Athenian rulers
FUNNY: Oedipus. Mythic, perhaps, but quite a ripper.

Aztecs: EVIL: Any
STUPID: Montezuma, though I suppose he can't be blamed.
FUNNY: See Zulus

Persians: EVIL: Not sure...
STUPID: Darius
FUNNY: Not sure

Iroquois: Can't come up with anyone.

Romans: EVIL: Nero's a good choice, though most of them *were* scum.
STUPID: Caligula's a good choice, though most of them *were* idiots. Also, consider Mussolini.
FUNNY: In hindsight, the whole thing seems rather silly, doesn't it?

Russians: EVIL: Stalin
STUPID: Nicholas II
FUNNY: Boris Yeltsin

Indians: No good ideas here

Egyptians: Nor here

Japanese: EVIL: Not sure
STUPID: Also lost
FUNNY: Hideaki Anno. Come to think of it, he might go well under Evil, also.

BABYLONIANS: EVIL: Nebuchadnezzar
STUPID: Not sure
FUNNY: Nebuchadnezzar sounds funny, doesn't it?

Chinese: EVIL: Mao. Hoo boy.
STUPID: Chang Kai-Shek
FUNNY: Deng Xiaoping. Have him appear with a set of cards.

And that's all I've got.

[ranskaldan]

FUNNY: Deng Xiaoping. Have him appear with a set of cards.

please explain.