Who were/are the Greatest Political Leaders

[Rob Thornton]

Some time ago we had a very popular thread entitled "Who are the Greatest Generals (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=2783&highlight=Greatest+Generals)". It evolved to become more then just council member's lists of favorites, or even lists of favorites with historical examples of military wins. It became a discussion about what makes a great military leader.

Why not give political leaders equal play? War is a way of achieving a political end, be it a calculated action, or a reaction. There is art in everything from building allies, to securing the gains toward the long term that were achieved in the decision, to as a political leader in the defeated polity convincing the victorious parties that its is in their best interest to make a better peace for the defeated. It can also include political leaders who at the same time were the defacto military leader.

The idea is to have a discussion about where in history (recent to ancient) political leadership was best employed in war - leading into war, during war and concluding the war.

Best, Rob

[SteveMetz]

I'd give more credit to political leaders who avoided war in dangerous times with significant damage to national interests rather than the architects of war. (As I was listening to Terry Gross interview a Marine colonel who spent three years as a casualty assistance officer yesterday, it dawned on me that the concept of "victory" in war is an oxymoron. All participants are losers; there are just different gradations of losing).

[Eden]

I'll start the list off by nominating Bismarck as the most successful political leader of the last few centuries. He was a master of internal politics who bent a series of governments to his will; he was a visionary who pursued a singular goal over a period of decades; he used military force to gain his objectives in a series of wars, but he prepared the way for those wars by setting the diplomatic preconditions for success; he understood and manipulated his international opponents; he limited the objectives of war to what was desirable and achieveable and consciously abandoned force when his overall strategic goal was achieved; he used the military but allowed the professionals to get on with the conduct of the war - until they threatened to upset the proper relationship between policy and war, when he brought them up short; and finally, he created an international system that preserved the peace and Germany's place in the sun for more than a generation.

Yes, he was not a nice man. Yes, his system broke down when lesser men - including one certified congenital idiot - tried to operate it. Still, WWI was neither inevitable nor directly the fault of Bismarck. All in all, I can't think of a more successful practitioner. And, he was a cavalryman.

[SteveMetz]

What about Prime Minister Count Rupert Mountjoy of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick?

[Gian P Gentile]

Nothing fancy here; just the basics.

I will go with Abe Lincoln; all time greatest political leader in war, ever ("ever" being intentionally said with my own American exceptionalist bias admitted)

gian

[Ron Humphrey]

Nothing fancy here; just the basics.

I will go with Abe Lincoln; all time greatest political leader in war, ever ("ever" being intentionally said with my own American exceptionalist bias admitted)

gian

I could agree with this one. The man definately had to deal with quite a variety of issues and in doing so was pretty effective.

That said I think several of the Roman leaders would probably be good examples considering that they were not only politicians but warriors and quite often at the same time. And thats not even looking at the economics, social developments, etc.

Finally may be more to some leaders here than we realize. It's often difficult to truly know what someone actually dealt with and how till about 30 years later. So the jurys still out on some of them.

[Tom Odom]

Franklin Roosevelt

Winston Churchill

Joseph Stalin

All had their issues and all had their faults, individually and collectively. Bot in a strange brew way those faults played into each other and cemented what was an effective alliance

Truman: in Korea he grew into the job when it counted most

[Rank amateur]

I like Ike. (He should've stumped on Monty instead of OKing Market Garden, but he was still wearing a uniform then.)

I agree with Steve, therefore JKF deserves a mention for the Cuban missile crisis: civil rights too.

Constantine accomplished a lot and had a long lasting influence.

[Ken White]

of IRBMs around the western USSR for a few in Cuber and couched it as a 'victory.' Yeah. Same guy that escalated Viet Nam and okayed the departure of Diem and attempts on Castro...

Yeah...

[Steve Blair]

Not a fan of JFK either, honestly.

Lincoln and Bismarck are good calls, and I'm rather tempted to toss in Frederick the Great as well. Nixon had some good foreign policy calls, though his domestic paranoia brought him down. Gonna have to ponder this one some more....

[Norfolk]

The Roman farmer-turned-dictator Cincinnatus. Although this would probably be more of an example of one of history's great citizens more than one of its great political leaders.

[SteveMetz]

Interestingly, no one has proposed Reagan.

[Cavguy]

Winston Churchill



A good choice for WWII, but just coming off of a ME history course, one can argue that his dreams of empire played a prime role in creating the nightmare that is the modern Middle East after WWI.

[Van]

The poor, challenged, son-of-a-gun got thrown into it after Gaius Caligula was shanked. Noone expected him to do anything right. He promptly proceeded to fix a bunch of the problems that had been piling up since the second half of Tiberius' reign.
And he had some experience managing Small Wars in Britain and Dalmatia (now the Balkans).

The Dukes of Venice of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth centuries (collectively) rate some consideration also. They had a good grasp of the instruments of power even if they didn't use our terminology.

Ronald Reagan is a worthy nomination, but probably needs some time to historically season.

[SteveMetz]

The poor, challenged, son-of-a-gun got thrown into it after Gaius Caligula was shanked. Noone expected him to do anything right. He promptly proceeded to fix a bunch of the problems that had been piling up since the second half of Tiberius' reign.
And he had some experience managing Small Wars in Britain and Dalmatia (now the Balkans).

The Dukes of Venice of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth centuries (collectively) rate some consideration also. They had a good grasp of the instruments of power even if they didn't use our terminology.

Ronald Reagan is a worthy nomination, but probably needs some time to historically season.


This reminds me of listening to Mike Vlahos and Ed Luttwak argue about 5th century Roman tactics (partially in Latin) a few years. As a plumber's son from Elk Hills, West Virginia, I couldn't help but be bemused.

[Tom Odom]

A good choice for WWII, but just coming off of a ME history course, one can argue that his dreams of empire played a prime role in creating the nightmare that is the modern Middle East after WWI.

No disagreement and that would be one of his "flaws" that gave him strength in WWII. As a dyed in the wool Imperialist, he was a most useful offset for FDR's naivete in dealing with Stalin.

Glad you are doing grad work on the Mid East. Keep ears and mind open, my friend.

Tom

[John T. Fishel]

George Washington should be at, or near, the top of any list. He presided over the conflictive Constitutional Convention, established the nature of the Presidency as an institution, the supremacy of the Union (in the Whishy Rebellion) and civilian control of the military - civ president commnads troops.

Charles De Gaulle succeeded in giving France a modern and stable government such as it never had before.

Ataturk brought Turkey into the modern world.

The Meiji Restoration leadership of Japan and Douglas MacArthur as Shogun after WWII.

William of Orange led the Glorious Revolution of 1689 that made modern Britain.

Alvaro Obregon brought stability to Mexico in the 1920s.

Jose Napoleon Duarte and his successor, Alfredo Cristiani, brought the El Sal civil war to a successful close and did a better job on reconciliation than Lincoln's successors did in the US.

Anyway, those are some of my candidates with reasons for those of you who care.;)

Cheers

JohnT

[Vic Bout]

Teddy Roosevelt, that gunboat-totin', big-game shootin', banana republic seizin', national park endowin' cowboy, with a mustache as big as all outdoors...

(whose trophy room in the white house, BTW, was immediately upon occupation dismantled by first lady Hillary)

[SteveMetz]

Jose Napoleon Duarte and his successor, Alfredo Cristiani, brought the El Sal civil war to a successful close and did a better job on reconciliation than Lincoln's successors did in the US.

Anyway, those are some of my candidates with reasons for those of you who care.;)

Cheers

JohnT

I was thinking of him but, man, thinks were screwed up at the time he left office. Maybe Magsaysay.

[SteveMetz]

Ho Chi Minh

[SteveMetz]

(whose trophy room in the white house, BTW, was immediately upon occupation dismantled by first lady Hillary)

So Bill just used a different one for his trophy room.

[Tom Odom]

Ho Chi Minh

Mao

[wm]

My nominees include :
Hammurabi
Hatshepsut (1st & only Female Pharoah)
Pericles
Hadrian
Cosimo De Medici
Thomas Becket
Thomas Cranmer
Cardinal Richelieu

While the last three are religious leaders, they were defacto political leaders IMHO. They were the powers behind the throne that created the successes that superficially history accords to their sovereigns.

I concur with Washington, Lincoln, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, and Charles DeGaulle.

Other guys I might like to include are Garibaldi and Sun Yat-sen. My internal jury has not yet returned a verdict

Bismarck, Stalin, Churchill, FDR, and HST are all iffy--most wartime politicians have greatness thrust on them rather than earning it outright, especially when they happen to be on the winning side.

Constantine's policies are a major reason the Roman Empire ended a short 150 years after his death

[Steve Blair]

Mao certainly trumps Ho...and we could always toss Fidel into the mix.

[wm]

Mao
I suspect that most of what Mao is famous for, he learned at Sun Yat-sen's knee. Remember, both Chinese parties (Nationalists and Communists) viewed Sun as their founding father.

[MattC86]

Roosevelt
Bismarck
Cavour
Lincoln
Talleyrand - you got to admire the political acumen of someone who could represent the Bourbon monarchy, the Directorate, and Napoleon - and then the Bourbons again!
Suleiman
Augustus
Fabian
Pericles

Regards,

Matt

[Ron Humphrey]

Egypt

Piye - Seems like there were complete societal shifts involved in that change of power happening and apparently followed up well enough to allow 6 more decades worth of ruling. Seems to have had a lot more to do with ideology/religion than necessarily good governance.

[Ski]

I second DeGaulle. Have to admit I was suprised someone else mentioned him.

[SteveMetz]

Mao certainly trumps Ho...and we could always toss Fidel into the mix.


No Ho?

Mao faced a third rate opponent; Ho faced the A Team.

[SteveMetz]

Pericles



Pericles? That's George Bush in a toga.

[Steve Blair]

No Ho?

Mao faced a third rate opponent; Ho faced the A Team.

Mao also dealt with the Japanese, who were certainly not third rate at that time and were much more ruthless than the US in Vietnam. He also managed to fend off Stalin.

Ho was an important leader to be sure, but I don't think he accomplished as much as Mao. After all, one reason he could succeed was Mao's intervention in Korea (thus spooking a succession of presidents into restraint).

[Rank amateur]

of IRBMs around the western USSR for a few in Cuber and couched it as a 'victory.' .

Yep. Giving away things that don't matter and receiving things that do is leadership. Avoiding nuclear war is important. I think landing on the moon is important. He was shot before he had to decide whether or not to up the ante in Vietnam. I'll give him pass on that, but I certainly understand why some wouldn't.

In my book, he gets bonus points for bedding Marilyn Monroe. You of course, can use your own scorecard.

[wm]

Pericles? That's George Bush in a toga.
And with good diction and no speechwriters to create cogent arguments for him to pass off as his own.

Good politicians are able to achieve their ends. Whether those ends are the right ones to be pursuing is a whole different matter.

If you want, I'll replace Pericles with Epaminondas.

[MattC86]

No Ho?

Mao faced a third rate opponent; Ho faced the A Team.

Not to re-open the whole Vietnam debate, but Ho faced the A team rendered blind and dumb by the strategic stupidity of its civilian and military leaders. . . and Ho (and especially Giap) took plenty of what Mao was feedin' em. . .

Regards,

Matt

[MattC86]

And with good diction and no speechwriters to create cogent arguments for him to pass off as his own.

Good politicians are able to achieve their ends. Whether those ends are the right ones to be pursuing is a whole different matter.

If you want, I'll replace Pericles with Epaminondas.

Epaminondas? Political leader? Great general, for sure, but my (probably flawed) remembrance of history has him about as much of a political leader as Belisarius. Right? Somebody?

Matt

[Ken White]

Yep. Giving away things that don't matter and receiving things that do is leadership. Avoiding nuclear war is important. I think landing on the moon is important. He was shot before he had to decide whether or not to up the ante in Vietnam. I'll give him pass on that, but I certainly understand why some wouldn't.

In my book, he gets bonus points for bedding Marilyn Monroe. You of course, can use your own scorecard.things that do matter for things that don't (do the math) is, in Kentucky, known as a bad deal, your mileage obviously varies. As to MM, bedding a pig who wants to crawl in bed with you may be a great idea for some but I'm sorta opposed to it if that's okay.

The Viet Nam decision was, I believe, made; as is true of the Civil Rights Bill, Lyndon simply took Kennedy's idea and ran with it.

He was a loser, crooked on top of it. Sorry.

Edited to add: I'll grant the space program... :D

[Tom Odom]

I suspect that most of what Mao is famous for, he learned at Sun Yat-sen's knee. Remember, both Chinese parties (Nationalists and Communists) viewed Sun as their founding father.

Beside the point. The question was political leadership in war. Who ended up with most of China?


Bismarck, Stalin, Churchill, FDR, and HST are all iffy--most wartime politicians have greatness thrust on them rather than earning it outright, especially when they happen to be on the winning side. .

Are you suggesting that great wartime politicians should lose? how should they earn it if not by winning or at least not losing?

Tom

[Tom Odom]

Definitely agree with Ataturk

Would add Ben Gurion, Golda Meir, Menachem Begin in advancing Israeli interests in the Middle East through war and diplomacy

Would consider Sadat for same reasons with regard to Egypt had he survived.

And to broaden the arena;

Uganda-Yoweri Museveni as the rebel who would help get rid of the Amin-Obote tag team. Vote is still out on his legacy, depending if he moves past the "Big Man" model so prevalent in African politics

Rwanda--exile, rebel against Obote, leader of the RPF/RPA, forced the former government to the table at Arusha, stood up to the French, ended the genocide, got rid of Mobutu and then Mobutu's successor, still movingf forward on reconciliation in post-genocide Rwanda. Legacy will be determned like tthat of Museveni. Does he move beyond the "Big Man" model in Africa?

Tom

[wm]

Beside the point. The question was political leadership in war. Who ended up with most of China?


Are you suggesting that great wartime politicians should lose? how should they earn it if not by winning or at least not losing?

Tom

First point--Mao did but IMO that is because he learned his lessons from Sun better than Chiang did. Without that education, Mao may never have been more than a poor rice farmer.

Second Point: I was not suggesting that they lose. I was instead suggesting that their reputations are enhanced out of proportion to their personal abilities/deeds by the fact that they happen to be in office during/at the successful conclusion to an armed struggle. Consensus building is much easier when a large body of agreement is already in place, as usually happens to be the case when a nation finds itself in a significant conflict of arms.

[Steve Blair]

Second Point: I was not suggesting that they lose. I was instead suggesting that their reputations are enhanced out of proportion to their personal abilities/deeds by the fact that they happen to be in office during/at the successful conclusion to an armed struggle. Consensus building is much easier when a large body of agreement is already in place, as usually happens to be the case when a nation finds itself in a significant conflict of arms.

That may be, but in Bismarck's case he didn't just happen to be in office at the conclusion of an armed struggle. Old Otto did much more than that, and managed to achieve something that previous gifted German leaders had not been able to do with any long-term success...unify Germany. And unlike some of his predecessors (and successors), Bismarck knew when to stop fighting and when to avoid conflict.

[SteveMetz]

Not to re-open the whole Vietnam debate, but Ho faced the A team rendered blind and dumb by the strategic stupidity of its civilian and military leaders. . . and Ho (and especially Giap) took plenty of what Mao was feedin' em. . .

Regards,

Matt


I have become convinced that the single greatest skill of a great strategist is an unerring ability to pick a stupid enemy. That's the only reason the British are considered good counterinsurgents.

[Ski]

Would also add Ghandi

[Ken White]

That may be, but in Bismarck's case he didn't just happen to be in office at the conclusion of an armed struggle. Old Otto did much more than that, and managed to achieve something that previous gifted German leaders had not been able to do with any long-term success...unify Germany. And unlike some of his predecessors (and successors), Bismarck knew when to stop fighting and when to avoid conflict.modern welfare state to keep the masses quiescent.

FDR learned well from Otto in several spheres...

[Watcher In The Middle]

Just to add a few names:

Dwight David Eisenhower. Vastly underestimated, simply oversaw 8 years of peaceful economic development during which occurred the economic underpinnings for the development of two of the technological growth areas for the US economy, and the world economy (being the initial development of both transistors [microprocessors] and broad spectrum antibiotics).

Pope John Paul II. Sometimes the best pols out there aren't political leaders at all.

Václav Havel, 1st President of the Czech Republic. Showed everybody else how to transition a nation into a market economy. Very impressive work, and getting it done basically flying under the radar screen.

[Van]

While I was away from the desk Havel came to mind (darn your eyes for beating me to him).

Eisenhower certainly deserves it, politicians in peace time do have an uphill struggle for recognition.

As detestable as many of the policies and practices of mainland China, I suspect that Hu Jintao may prove out over the centuries. He's gently pulling the fangs from the PLA leadership, and making them enjoy it. Time will tell.

Again, as loathesome as the man, his government, and their policies, Castro was the longest sitting leader in the Americas of the XXth century, and maintained power while in conflict with the U.S. Either he's really good, or we've had some really bad leaders. By the same criteria, the Kim family in North Korea...

Queen Liliʻuokalani of Hawai'i certainly deserves consideration, especially for her efforts to preserve Hawai'ian culture even after she was deposed.

[SteveMetz]

Since we're on an Eisenhower theme here, let me point to a little ditty (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB359.pdf) I did as a child.

[Ron Humphrey]

While I was away from the desk Havel came to mind (darn your eyes for beating me to him).

Eisenhower certainly deserves it, politicians in peace time do have an uphill struggle for recognition.

As detestable as many of the policies and practices of mainland China, I suspect that Hu Jintao may prove out over the centuries. He's gently pulling the fangs from the PLA leadership, and making them enjoy it. Time will tell.

Again, as loathesome as the man, his government, and their policies, Castro was the longest sitting leader in the Americas of the XXth century, and maintained power while in conflict with the U.S. Either he's really good, or we've had some really bad leaders. By the same criteria, the Kim family in North Korea...

Queen Liliʻuokalani of Hawai'i certainly deserves consideration, especially for her efforts to preserve Hawai'ian culture even after she was deposed.

both Castro and the Kim's would not have been quite so longevitous without some serious assistance from some of their formost military leaders and in both cases some fairly hefty outside assistance/intervention.

[Schmedlap]

Muhammad

[kehenry1]

Peter because he was able to wrangle the boyers and push Russia towards its first modernization, created a real army and navy, looked towards real strategic survival by going south towards the Black Sea, all while fending off numerous assassination attempts, the orthodox church (which sometimes supported him and sometimes didn't) and various other achievements.

He didn't always succeed, but I believe he was extremely far thinking and moved Russia towards its future empire under both the monarchs and the bolsheviks.

Catherine for some obvious and not so obvious reasons. I mean, you have to give it to the lady, she was a nobody outsider in the court and wrangled it into the crown of an empress. She kept the men jumping to her tune, made the army grand again, kept the empire together and basically whipped the boyers and the church into obedience. Oh...she made Russia rich. took the fight to the Ottoman. Gained the Crimean peninsula and finalized Peter's drive to get access to the Black Sea.

then there is the whole arts and culture renaissance and the somewhat on again of again religious protections. Seriously, you cannot have a list of "greats" without Catherine the Great.

Elizabeth I. 45 years on the throne, fending off all sorts of power grabs and intrigues. kept her head. navigated the perils up to and directly after the ascendancy to the thrown. Various assassination attempts. Defeated the Spanish Armada. Kept a post Henry VIII England together. Over saw the expansion of the British Empire, exploration to the United States and colonization. Kept the French at bay. Shakespeare. Marlowe.

None of these were perfect, but they were very good when it was needed.

[davidbfpo]

A few quick thoughts, not in priority and my list would include:

Winston Churchill (for WW2 leadership)
David Lloyd George (for WW1 leadership)
Elizabeth the First (defeating the Spanish Armarda)
Nelson Mandela (helping those first years of a new South Africa)
Margaret Thatcher (waking up the UK)
Helmut Schmidt (West German PM in the Cold War)
FDR (leading a reluctant USA into WW2)
King Juan Carlos (helping Spain emerge as a democracy)
Vaclev Havel (same for Czechoslovakia)
Pope John Paul (the Pole who reminded us of mankind's better qualities)
Jospeh Stalin (reluctantly included ruthless b)

davidbfpo

[tequila]

Chinese history quibble: Mao didn't learn anything from Sun Yatsen, IMO. SYT is vastly overrated. He had very little role in the 1911 Revolution that overthrew the Qing and if anything the overly militarized government he established led directly to the weakness and centralization of the Chiang Kai-shek regime.

Mao also gets too much attention as a military leader. Most of his best tactical advice on guerrilla warfare was cribbed from Zhu De, Su Yu, He Long, Zhang Guotao, and others who actually led the operational detachments of the Red Army in its revolutionary days.

If you're calculating greatest political leaders, I'd nominate Deng Xiaoping instead of Mao. Deng's military cred is as good as any, having led the final offensive that finished off the Nationalists. Unlike Mao, China actually benefited from his domestic policies as opposed to sinking into near-anarchy and mass starvation. Deng also avoided pointless, expensive foreign conflicts.

[John T. Fishel]

you give, David, I think you have to include his partner (and sometime adversary) F. W. de Klerk.

In a similar vein, harking back to steve Metz' comment on Duarte: I would not propose him alone for the same reasons as gave you qualms, but along with Freddie Cristiani there is real political leadership.

Cheers

JohnT

[Eden]

I can't believe nobody has mentioned David Palmer

[SteveMetz]

you give, David, I think you have to include his partner (and sometime adversary) F. W. de Klerk.

In a similar vein, harking back to steve Metz' comment on Duarte: I would not propose him alone for the same reasons as gave you qualms, but along with Freddie Cristiani there is real political leadership.

Cheers

JohnT

Agree. Mandela was one of the first ones I thought of but decided that while he is a great political leader, he can't really be considered a great war time one. He was on Robbin Island during most of the war.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

Have to go with Nguyễn Ái Quốc over Mao since anything positive Mao did for China was offset by the "Great Leap Forward" and the "Cultural Revolution."

Gustavus Adolphus

Napoleon (for developing the Code Napoléon)

Niccolò Machiavelli (one of the few who's name is now a pejorative term)

Simón Bolívar

[Hacksaw]

Eden,
David Palmer died before he could truly establish himself as a world statesman. His work in times of terrorist crises was impressive - but an incomplete resume :D

[Steve Blair]

Have to go with Nguyễn Ái Quốc over Mao since anything positive Mao did for China was offset by the "Great Leap Forward" and the "Cultural Revolution."

Gustavus Adolphus

Napoleon (for developing the Code Napoléon)

Niccolò Machiavelli (one of the few who's name is now a pejorative term)

Simón Bolívar

I'm not so sure that Ho would have avoided the same pitfalls. He did launch some purges in the later 1950s, and it's hard to say what he would have done in the South had he lived to see 1975-76.

[SteveMetz]

Eden,
David Palmer died before he could truly establish himself as a world statesman. His work in times of terrorist crises was impressive - but an incomplete resume :D

Wait a minute--I thought he just gave up the White House so that he could concentrate on making Allstate commercials. I'm so confused.

[Van]

Originally Posted by Umar Al-Mokhtār

Niccolò Machiavelli (one of the few who's name is now a pejorative term)

The greatest irony of the pejorative term is that Machiavelli was a proponent of democratic values (Machiavelli's Art of War, he believed in Athenian democracy, along with the encumbent personal responsibilities for the defense of the state).

Still, a good thought, and in keeping with the Dukes of Venice who were his contemporaries.

[TT]

Temujin (aka Genghis Khan)

Reasons: United the many Central Asian plateau tribes, developed a civilian and military code for the governance of the expanding Mongol Empire that was tolerant of different ethnicities, cultures and religions, administrative advancement based on merit not ethincity or family (except his own family), oversaw the development of a very successful military organizational structure and way of war, and granted a degree of autonomy to his Generals (who were very adaptive in adopting others tactics and technologies in warfare).

Oh, and he created one of world’s largest empires - or maybe that should be fought and marauded his way to - one of world’s largest empires; albeit a rather fleeting one that was split up after his death. His downside was he and his Generals were seriously ruthless.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

Steve: Agree, there certainly were purges within the Viet Minh after the French left the North, but Mao's "social" programs (and Stalin's) were such failures that millions died. Ho did not go quite that far. But purges are the Leftist way: We will agree to disagree until we have total power, then you die! :eek:

Van: Unfortunately there's no "tounge in cheek" emoticon! :rolleyes: Machiavelli's writings in "The Prince" are what led to his name being used pejorativly. His name has been misused in a similar way as the term "Ugly American" has.

Plus I enjoy using the word pejorative every chance I get.

[marct]

Certainly agree with most of WM's list, plus Elizabeth 1st, Hatshepsut and Temujin. A couple of others:

Frederick Barbarosa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_I_%28Barbarossa%29)
- combined military prowess and massive advances in bureaucratic organization of the HRE.
Richard III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_of_England)
- the last English king to lead his troops in battle, the last English king to systematically administer justice, and an all around decent guy wrongly slandered by the usurping Tudors (not that I'm prejudiced :D).
Ptolemy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy_I_Soter)
- one of the few of the Diodachi to create a stable state; god general, god politician, gtreat administrator.
Ahmose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmose_I) and Khamose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamose) (founders of the Egyptian New Kingdom)
- freakin' brilliant brothers who threw the Hyksos out of Egypt (yeah, they were "insurgents" ;)) and reconstructed the entire Egyptian state.
Salah al-Din (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salah_al-Din)
- one of the few Muslim leaders who could actually find his a&& with one hand when it came to dealing with the Crusader states; excellent administrator and war leader.
Basil II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_II) (Bulgaris)
- last of the great "military Emperors" of Byzantium; held the bureaucratic faction in check, increased the stability of the empire, annihilated the Bulgars as a threat to the Empire.

[Van]

Umar,
Re: Machiavelli: I'm just amused by the irony of a (for the time) fairly radical, liberal's name to be used as the quintessential term for cynical pragmatism. And, of course, perjorative is a pretty cool word.

Marct,

Frederick Barbarosa
- ... massive advances in bureaucratic organization of the HRE.
Greatest politician... "made advances in bureaucratic organization"
I'm not sure advancing bureaucracy makes a politician great. If that is a criteria, Hammurabi and Confucius (Kong Fuzi, K'ung Fu Tzu, pick your spelling) would be 'A' list politicians. I would argue that Barbarosa had other qualities that make up for this short fall :D


TT,
Temujin is a good call, he appreciated the value of robust, rapid communications. A point against him is how brief the existance of his empire was after his death.

In the 'time will tell' division - Yulia Tymoshenko, Prime Minister of Ukraine. Now I regret mentioning her in a Kitakidogo Social Club entry. Her efforts to clean up Ukraine corruption, her candor in openly addressing the direction that Russia is taking, and her positive vision for her nation are an admirable model for any political leader.

[Norfolk]

Hatshepsut? This seems rather uncertain. Other than reviving Egyptian trade with Punt (and commissioning some beautiful architecture), it does not strike me that much really occurred during her reign that was substantively beneficial. Egypt weakened dramatically vis-a-vis its neighbours, and vassals themselves either jumped ship and ultimately cast their lot with the King of Kadesh, or found themselves compelled to do so. Not a single campaign of any significance was waged during her reign. Moreover, AFAIK, no substantial internal reform was effected within Egypt itself. She probably had her hands full just trying to secure and maintain the legitimacy of her rule. Thuthmoses III (probably not least due to the internal pressures that had been building-up during Hatshepsut's reign) had to deal with all this after he came to power.

I would have to agree with Schmedlap on Muhammed. We're still knee-deep in dealing with the effects, political and otherwise, of the order he created. And the effects will persist for centuries to come.

[AmericanPride]

King Ferdinand of Aragon and Queen Isabella of Castile: managed the consolidation of their kingdom by expelling Muslim rivals from the Iberian Peninsula in the Reconquista, a targeted repression of Jewish converts (and remaining Muslims) through the Spanish Inquisition IOT to destroy domestic opposition factions, and enhanced (what would become) Spain's international position by defeating the French in Italy and securing legal rights over much of the New World.