MaoOriginally Posted by SteveMetz
So Bill just used a different one for his trophy room.
Mao
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
Mao certainly trumps Ho...and we could always toss Fidel into the mix.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
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.
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
"Give a good leader very little and he will succeed. Give a mediocrity a great deal and he will fail." - General George C. Marshall
What about
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.
Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours
Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur
I second DeGaulle. Have to admit I was suprised someone else mentioned him.
"Speak English! said the Eaglet. "I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and what's more, I don't believe you do either!"
The Eaglet from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland
No Ho?
Mao faced a third rate opponent; Ho faced the A Team.
Pericles? That's George Bush in a toga.
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).
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
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.
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.
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
"Give a good leader very little and he will succeed. Give a mediocrity a great deal and he will fail." - General George C. Marshall
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
"Give a good leader very little and he will succeed. Give a mediocrity a great deal and he will fail." - General George C. Marshall
There wasn't going to be a nuclear war and giving
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...
Last edited by Ken White; 05-01-2008 at 07:50 PM. Reason: Addendum
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
Last edited by Tom Odom; 05-01-2008 at 08:02 PM.
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
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.
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.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks