@alexmilman
If you mean conquering Constantinople, most ancient states participated in conquest at one point even the Byzantines. States fall and rise and fall and rise in a continuous cycle.
If you mean negative press towards them, there is absolutely no way a statesmen can avoid that. If you take any historical political figure you'll find at least someone who dislikes them.
I think it’s automatically assumed that “best” in these kinds of topics is generally talking about “best at improving/expanding their country and its people’s well-being,” though I get what you’re saying.I meant exactly what I said: surviving people of Constantinople hardly would consider him the "best". Which means that when you start
"best"/"worst" type of things the clear criteria for "best in what" is necessary.
I think it’s automatically assumed that “best” in these kinds of topics is generally talking about “best at improving/expanding their country and its people’s well-being,” though I get what you’re saying.
Right and the balance of the two is where the question of what makes a great leader comes into play. I tend to think whoever provides for their people the best is the greatest leader, but one must take into account if the question is asking for the leader who most benefitted their country as a people or their country as an institution.In many cases the rulers who were the best in expanding their country were not necessarily the best in the area of improving subjects' well-being: the wars tend to be expensive affairs.
In France the whole ideology of "greatness", as implemented by Richelieu, Louis XIV and (to a lesser degree) Napoleon, assumed that the subjects must sacrifice to the glory of their country. Well before the end of the reign of Louis XIV most of his subjects lived in poverty and the state was pretty much ruined financially. Nappy was doing reasonably OK economically but this was to a great degree due to a well-organized looting of the defeated enemies. However, for years after his fall France had been suffering from a "shortness" of the males.
Genghis was probably the best in the terms of expansion (even if we ignore expansion which happened after his death) but this does not mean that his Mongolian subjects lived better economically. IIRC, there was a near crisis situation close to his death (the warriors fighting far away can't tend to the herds so you have a problem) which was remedied only by the looting of Tangut Kingdom.
Has anybody any proof for this ?However, for years after his fall France had been suffering from a "shortness" of the males.
Probably the guy that American Public High School actually bothered to mention in footnotes, I mean uh, lessons: Suleiman I, the Magnificent.
>be me taking AP Euro and doing summer work and it literally being this for three chaptersBut wouldn’t you rather get three chapters about HUMANISM and THE RENAISSANCE instead?
In my headcanon, Mehmed II is currently wandering through Hell bereft of his eyes, ears, tongue, nose, and hands, as punishment for his snuffing out of such a beautiful culture, and ridding Europe and Asia of its last link to the Ancient World.
In my headcanon that title goes to Enrico Dandolo—Mr. Mehmed just put the damn thing out of its misery.
Who’s to say that they both aren’t?