Which "Great" Person truly deserved it?

Which "Great" Person Truly Deserved It?

  • Akbar the Great, ruler of the Mughal Empire of South Asia

    Votes: 6 2.1%
  • Alexander the Great, King of Persia, Macedonia, Greece, Egypt, and all of Mesopotamia

    Votes: 121 42.3%
  • Alfred the Great of Wessex, English

    Votes: 30 10.5%
  • Ashoka the Great, Indian emperor of the Maurya dynasty

    Votes: 12 4.2%
  • Catherine the Great, Russian Empire

    Votes: 7 2.4%
  • Charles the Great, more commonly known as "Charlemagne"

    Votes: 23 8.0%
  • Constantine the Great, Rome/Byzantium

    Votes: 9 3.1%
  • Cyrus the Great, Persia (Iran)

    Votes: 21 7.3%
  • Frederick the Great, Prussia

    Votes: 23 8.0%
  • Peter the Great, Russian Empire

    Votes: 18 6.3%
  • Sargon the Great, Akkad

    Votes: 6 2.1%
  • Someone not on this list

    Votes: 10 3.5%

  • Total voters
    286
I'm not sure if Darius having more stones would have made a difference. The phalanx and "heavy" cavalry combination would be tough to crack with the forces he had available - referring to type/quality, here.

As for using his father's army and not his own: While I agree this is a major edge for Alexander, I'm not sure how much that should deny him "greatness".

That John II Comnenus* could build on his father's foundations doesn't make him less of a basileus than his father. One might argue that Alexius I was still greater for surmounting greater challenges, and this may apply to Philip vs. Alexander, but that needs elaboration.

It might be worth saying that Alexander had such a high quality force and capable subordinates (before they died, sometimes by his orders) that even a lesser ruler could achieve great deeds, but that doesn't appear to be what is being
argued by giving credit to the army to Philip.

And the degree Persia was decaying seems up for some debate - but I don't know enough to pose an argument, other than to quote from Alexander the Great Failure (which is referring to his failure in the long term): "The concept of 'decline' of this empire is no very helpful, being a projection back from its defeat by Alexander; the surmounting of imperial difficulties in the 360s and 350s implies strength, not decline."

*: Because John II and Alexius I, if not called "the Great" were certainly amazing. And a discussion of great rulers without at least glancing at Rhomania (what's BG's spelling of that again?) is just blind. On that note, John deserves it more than Manuel I, who seems to have had some form of "the Great" (megas, if memory serves).
 
Last edited:
If it has to be someone on this list, I would say Cyrus. Not necessarily for being a military genius, but because he built a mighty empire which had HUGE influence on the modern world (what with all the Eastern thought that mixed with the Greek to become Hellenism and Zoroastrianism's influence on Judaism and later Christianity) and was fairly magnanimous in victory and good to conquered peoples.
 
I find it odd that more people think of Peter as Greater than Aśoka; what did Peter do that was so noble as to outshine Aśoka?
 
It's unfortunate that you can only vote for one here -- most of these earned the epithet.

I voted for Alfred because he pulled his country through when things were at their most desperate -- note that the other English kingdoms (Mercia, Northumbria) collapsed completely -- and also had to come up new ways to fight the vikings. He was also educated and chivalrous in an age noted for barbarism.

It doesn't seem to have been too hard to get called 'the Great' given some of the obscure rulers that are known that way (Bagrat V of Georgia, William V of Aquitaine and Sancho III of Navarre are three examples). Herod I is called the Great even though he was a puppet ruler.
 
Top