The Most Powerful Leader Ever?

jahenders

Banned
I'm not sure he'd really count. He does hold powerful (posthumous) sway now, but wasn't very powerful in his life and he's not actively "leading" now.

Muhammad, Founder of the Islamic Empire deserves an honorable mention from me as well.

No single man before or since has ever had as much unbreakable control over the spiritual, foreign, domestic policy of a country.
 

jahenders

Banned
Per the statement, it seems (fairly reasonably) that you're defining Leader Power as a product of National Power (military, economic, political) (relative to the "known" world at the time) * Degree of Unquestioned Control.

LP = NP (military, economic, political) * DUC.

Assuming that's the case, I think the following are contenders:
- Stalin -- LP = 7 * 7 = 49
- Hitler -- LP = 8 * 6 = 48
- Xerxes -- LP = 8 * 8 = 64
- Ramses -- LP = 6 * 9 = 54
- Napolean -- LP = 7 * 8 = 56

Presidents fade somewhat by this ratio
- FDR -- LP = 8 * 5 = 40
- Reagan -- LP = 8 * 5 = 40
- GWB -- LP = 9 * 4 = 36
- Obama -- LP = 7 * 5 = 35
- Washington -- LP = 2 * 7 = 14

Then, we can argue about the relative numbers

Thoughts?

Who is the most powerful leader in written history?

Power can be an amorphous idea, but in terms of relative power projection (both hard and soft) on both domestic and foreign opponents and allies and citizens, who would you say is the most powerful leader ever?

For example, any POTUS after 1991 could be a good choice as they are the Commander and Chief of the most powerful army ever. But relative to say an ancient despot, they have little to no power against domestic opponents.

And a medieval king again maybe able to dominate internal opponents at will, but couldn't necessarily effect as much soft power regionally/globally as say the current British PM.

So again, balancing these many facets together, who is the most powerful leader of all time?

My answer: Joesph Stalin
 
>implying that the guy who drove his country into the ground so hard it split in half was even the most powerful leader of the 1940s, let alone of all time

In 1942 he controlled all of continental Europe, including his industries and populations, had the right to kill everyone of his "subjects" without any opposition, his armies had invaded an unbelievable amount of lands stretching from Brittany to Stalingrad, he was both the most influential leaders in terms of domestic power and the leader of the most powerful country of Europe.

I oppose to the conception that the American president is the most powerful person of the world - he has to ask the congress for getting money, he can neither declare war without the assent of the congress nor appointing any official without the apporval of the senate. He may lead the most powerful nation of the world, but he isn't the most powerful leader in domestic affairs.

If you look for a really powerful person both domestic and in foreign affairs, look for Hitler in 1941/42 or for Stalin in 1945.
 
Someone suggested Reagan as the most powerful of American presidents. When I suggested FDR and Ike, I didn't include Reagan (or indeed any 20th century presidents after Ike) because it was in the 60s that the Third World discovered how to use guerrilla warfare and manipulation of the First World Media to negate the power of nuclear weapons and modern air forces and navies and to demoralize First World (and later Soviet) draftee ground troops. For many practical purposes, this rendered American military power useless and in the aftermath of Vietnam even Reagan had to resort to Iran-contra trickery to fund small proxy wars in Central America. The fall of the ghost of Stalin's regime in Russia was primarily the result of internal changes within Russia rather than U.S. pressure. The power of the U.S. military was demonstrated against technologically primitive forces in Iraq in the Gulf War, but when GWB sent in the military to conquer and occupy Iraq he demonstrated just how difficult it still is for the U.S. to fight unconventional forces. When the Arab spring occurred, some thought this was a vindication of U.S. ideals, if not of U.S. military strength, but the result was ISIS. It should be noted, also, that from Vietnam through Iraq II and even against ISIS today, the U.S. has received little support from its NATO allies (this is so obvious that I won't go into detail). The days when the British fought a parallel war to Korea in Malaysia, and when Turkish and Colombian troops (the latter with extraordinary heroism) fought proudly in Korea are over. We couldn't even get the Turks to let us use their bases in the fight against ISIS without acquiescing in Turkish bombings against our informal Kurdish allies. As to the British, it will a long time before they will forget how they were used so cynically in the Iraq war. Power involves intelligent and principled leadership--the Bush admin provided us with ineffectual leadership, powerful on the outside, weak on the inside. China continues to rise and our natural ally, India, lacks any real confidence in us, with good reason.
 
Last edited:
Per the statement, it seems (fairly reasonably) that you're defining Leader Power as a product of National Power (military, economic, political) (relative to the "known" world at the time) * Degree of Unquestioned Control.

LP = NP (military, economic, political) * DUC.

Assuming that's the case, I think the following are contenders:
- Stalin -- LP = 7 * 7 = 49
- Hitler -- LP = 8 * 6 = 48
- Xerxes -- LP = 8 * 8 = 64
- Ramses -- LP = 6 * 9 = 54
- Napolean -- LP = 7 * 8 = 56

Presidents fade somewhat by this ratio
- FDR -- LP = 8 * 5 = 40
- Reagan -- LP = 8 * 5 = 40
- GWB -- LP = 9 * 4 = 36
- Obama -- LP = 7 * 5 = 35
- Washington -- LP = 2 * 7 = 14

Then, we can argue about the relative numbers

Thoughts?

Hitler is more DUC = 10 and NP = 5 (don't forget he fought against the whole world, and controlled only Europe), while Stalin is DUC = 9 and NP = 70. Napoleon has a DUC of 10, and an NP of 9 (without England, the whole "civilized" world has to obey him.

Trajan had a DUC of 9, and a NP of 10, so I think he is quite unchallenged in terms of power.

Bush was really powerful at home after 9/11, and 90 % of the world followed him at this point. So I think he deserves a DUC = 9 and NP = 9 rating. Obama is more DUC = 2 and NP = 5.

Reagan had to share his might with another superpower on the earth, so his NP is like 5, as is Gorbatchov's at this time.
 
Now I know this might be laughed at or controversial but hear me out (since I already gave Xerxes as my first choice this gets to be my "fun" choice) :D

United States of America President William Jefferson Clinton. Why? After the fall of the USSR and communism "everywhere" one can argue the US was in the strongest possible military and foreign relations sphere of dominating the globe with no serious rival with the fall of the only other SuperPower and China still decades away from being a serious rival. Now, one can say "OK, then George (HW) Bush would be the one to be the most powerful in the world of all time" but- recession and stagnant economy mars Bush's single term. Under Clinton most robust economy ever seen, our soft power at its height, and our military more active around the world than since WWII- we were still in Iraq holding the south, we bombed Sudan and Afghanistan, we were involved in Bosnia et Herzogovina and bombing Kosovo, the Dayton Accords, Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty, NAFTA, and much more under Bill Clinton just in the foreign relations department. Yes, at home he faced impeachment, but even during the height of it he was still very popular with the people, and he also faced down Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress leading to a shut down of the government for which the Republicans in Congress got the blame and he got more popular.

And he's the one president in modern times to actually leave office with a higher approval rating on his last day in office than when he first took office. He's gone on to be still a force in international and domestic politics is just one more show of how powerful a force he was when in office.

Oh, and if you can get oral while on the phone with a foreign leader and not manage to start an international incident you definitely deserve bonus points.
 
Top