NationStates Jolt Archive

...because such a thread had to appear, sooner or later. As in the title, it's like "post your favourite European monarch", only for non-European ones. Includes these who ruled parts of Europe, but hailed from non-European cultures (this means arabs, Turks etc.).

And please don't write too much on Emperor Norton, it's a bit too obvious.

Wow, this is hard.

Ok, I'm gonna go with Gaozu of Han, but seriously, all the best ones came from Europe.

Burger King.

Screw you! I vote for Emperor Norton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton) anyway!

Genghis Khan?
Saladin?


I don't really know my monarch history but they seemed alright. Though they may not be classed as monarchs...

Empress Victoria of India :p

And please don't write too much on Emperor Norton, it's a bit too obvious.

DAMN! :p

This.

http://fohn.net/monarch-butterfly-pictures/monarch-butterfly_1024x768.jpg

King David - Legendary well pretty much everything

King Solomon - Legendary Wisdom

Nebuchadnezzar II - (reigned 605-562 B.C.) was a king of Babylon during whose long and eventful reign the Neo-Babylonian Empire attained its peak and the city of Babylon its greatest glory. That is the way you do it go out on top.

"I have dreamed a dream, but now that dream has gone from me"

This.

http://fohn.net/monarch-butterfly-pictures/monarch-butterfly_1024x768.jpgAh yes, Monarch 403 of Forbidden Page Land. How soon we forget the great ones.

http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/articles/blog/1790000379/20080802/071506marvin-the-martian.jpg

Actually I nominate Marvin the Martian. We all knew he was King of the Martians.

Zhao Kuangyin...

King Julien XIII

Ah yes, Monarch 403 of Forbidden Page Land. How soon we forget the great ones.

Hmm works when i click it :(


http://www.gpnc.org/monarch.htm

Zhao Kuangyin...

Good choice.

Hmm works when i click it :(It works for me if I click in and reload the page a few times. Strange.

Hammurabi of Babylon

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y250/bombtrak/king_cosmos.jpg

Hands Down.

King David was pretty epic.
Also,I vote for the King of Kings, Jesus.

King Herod and his lovely wife Doris

Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar, otherwise known as the Mughal Emperor Akbar, arguably the greatest of that Imperial line.

But ignore his Wiki entry. The current version seems to have been written by either Muslim apologists or Hindu nationalists - or both - who want to emphasise Akbar's Islamic roots over his religious syncreticism and tolerance towards multiple faiths, one of his more attractive characteristics. You know something's up when half of the entry on one of India's greatest post-medieval rulers consists of hand-wringing over whether he was a pious Muslim or not, and whether his edicts of tolerance (such as repealing the jizya) had any real benefits for his Hindu subjects.

Pity. Other than Aurangzeb, most of the great Mughals were a fairly attractive lot as absolute Oriental despots go.

And another vote for Gaozu, founder of the Han Dynasty, and the man who gave Qin centralism a more human and viable foundation.

I'd have to go with the latter part of the reign of Japan's Emperor Showa. His government made a long string of big mistakes in the beginning, but in the end, I believe he redeemed himself.

What, no votes for Ashoka the Great (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka_the_Great)?

Ozymandias

I pick Ivan the Great of Russia. Which I will call an Asian country.

I pick Ivan the Great of Russia. Which I will call an Asian country.

Erm, russia was entirely european until about 75 years after ivan the great's death...

Meiji Emperor?

Me. Now excuse me while I go sit on the "throne"...

Genghis fucking Khan, or Timur the lame. Both were fucking unstoppable.

Genghis fucking Khan, or Timur the lame. Both were fucking unstoppable.

fucking too right! roarar!!1

fucking too right! roarar!!1

Where've you been for ages?

Whichever Emperor of japan it was that managed the 'Meiji Restoration' during the 19th century and set his nation on a successful path to modernisation and (for a while, anyway) greatness without just turning it into a carbon-copy of a European or American nation...

Where've you been for ages?

Work...hardly anytime and I let my nation lapse...doh

Damn awesome monarch. He can even wipe out planets. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamehameha_I)

Work...hardly anytime and I let my nation lapse...doh

Change your job so you get more time on NSG. ;)

Whichever Emperor of japan it was that managed the 'Meiji Restoration' during the 19th century and set his nation on a successful path to modernisation and (for a while, anyway) greatness without just turning it into a carbon-copy of a European or American nation...

That, cunningly enough, would have been the Meiji Emperor (personal name Mutsuhito, but personal names are never used for deceased Japanese emperors).

But he had little role in the Restoration, which was essentially a coup through which an oligarchic group overthrew the shogunate in order to modernise Japan, while using the polite fiction of the personal restoration of the Emperor's rule as a figleaf to cover their seizure of power. He was little more than a constitutional figurehead.

His main personal achievement was to become the longest-ruling Japanese Emperor since the 16th century.

Change your job so you get more time on NSG. ;)

I'm amazed I've been remembered! LOLOL

I certainly hope to spend more time on this board :)

I'm amazed I've been remembered! LOLOL

I certainly hope to spend more time on this board :)

I remember you from the Newspeak thread and my IRA one. You were quite an enjoyable member of the forum. It'd be great if you could spend more time here.

I remember you from the Newspeak thread and my IRA one. You were quite an enjoyable member of the forum. It'd be great if you could spend more time here.

I need to do some searching! LOL

It would have to be the Egyptian Pharoah, Ozmandias - immortalised in Shelley's sonnet of that name:
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

the first Nepalese king, who's name i don't even know, who almost blew it by getting the hots for a goddess, but they reached an understanding and remained good, if platonic, friends.

there's some sort of holiday they have or had, that celibrates this.

probably the very first deli lama too. or whoever it was, brought tibet from warrior society to peaceful one.

It would have to be the Egyptian Pharoah, Ozmandias - immortalised in Shelley's sonnet of that name. <snip>

That would be the person that most of us know as Ramesses II, then.

'Osymandias' [note spelling] is a Greek transliteration of Ramesses' throne name User-maat-re Setep-en-re, and Shelley was paraphrasing in English an Egyptian statue inscription translated by the 1st Century BC Greek historian Diodorus Siculus that read (in the English translation of the Greek taken from the classical Egyptian) 'King of Kings am I, Osymandias. If anyone would know how great I am and where I lie, let him surpass one of my works'.

Poetic classical Chinese whispers!


And while Ramesses was undoubtedly a great ruler (or at least a great self-publicist), it's one of Shelley's lesser sonnets.

When it comes to desert-inspired visions, I prefer Yeats' The Second Coming.

Whichever Emperor of japan it was that managed the 'Meiji Restoration' during the 19th century and set his nation on a successful path to modernisation and (for a while, anyway) greatness without just turning it into a carbon-copy of a European or American nation...

Um, that would be Emperor Meiji?

For me, Huang Di, the Yellow Emperor. Though debatably extant (and certainly his tale has grown in the telling), one of the most influential figures in all history.

His Royal Highness Prince Leonard I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutt_River_Province_Principality), most glorious ruler of the Principality of Hutt River.

His Royal Highness Prince Leonard I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutt_River_Province_Principality), most glorious ruler of the Principality of Hutt River.

Prince Leonard is hardly alone. A long list of micronations (as opposed to recognised sovereign microstates) can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_micronations).


Why, in addition to my UK citizenship, the Grand Duke Louis of the Grand Duchy of the Lagoan Isles (http://lagoan-isles-gov.tripod.com/) has personally made me one of the 37 citizens of his mighty nation, and invested me with the Grand Order of the Swan in recognition of my close childhood association with the Duchy (I used to walk around it with my grandmother every weekend when I was about 4-6 years old). The only reason I haven't mentioned His Royal Highness in this thread previously is that he's based in the UK, and therefore isn't a non-European monarch.

Why, in addition to my UK citizenship, the Grand Duke Louis of the Grand Duchy of the Lagoan Isles (http://lagoan-isles-gov.tripod.com/) has personally made me one of the 37 citizens of his mighty nation, and invested me with the Grand Order of the Swan in recognition of my close childhood association with the Duchy (I used to walk around it with my grandmother every weekend when I was about 4-6 years old). The only reason I haven't mentioned His Royal Highness in this thread previously is that he's based in the UK, and therefore isn't a non-European monarch.

Please let this be you: Rt. Hon. Baron Von Chesterfield MLP
If that's your name then you're a living god.

Please let this be you: Rt. Hon. Baron Von Chesterfield MLP
If that's your name then you're a living god.

Sorry - I have to disappoint you on that one. Not that I'm going to get into a guessing game over which of the 37 citizens I actually am, but I'm not the Rt. Hon. Baron Von Chesterfield MLP.

I am married to White Russian nobility, though. Does that count for anything some 90 years after the Revolution?

Sorry - I have to disappoint you on that one. Not that I'm going to get into a guessing game over which of the 37 citizens I actually am, but I'm not the Rt. Hon. Baron Von Chesterfield MLP.

I am married to White Russian nobility, though. Does that count for anything some 90 years after the Revolution?

Start a rebellion and reinstate the Russian Nobility? Just throwing the idea out there...

King David was pretty epic.
Also,I vote for the King of Kings, Jesus.

Started off as a lowly Shepard boy and rose to be King. From worst to first.

Started off as a lowly Shepard boy and rose to be King. From worst to first.

And killed a giant with a sling.

xenu

Saladin?


This. If it wasnt also for Nur al-Din, it would be /thread.

Greatest non European Monarch is Cetshwayo kaMpande Zulu.
Who else could take on an industrialized nation with modern weapons using shields and spears.

Shaka

Genghis Khan?
I'd go with Genghis Khan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan) as well.

I also admire Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haile_Selassie_I_of_Ethiopia)

Akbar the Great.

Tokugawa Ieyasu.

And a number of Chinese Emperors were excellent.

I'd go with Genghis Khan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan) as well.

Rock on! He burned libraries, slaughtered millions and raped thousands! He even beats Mahmud of Ghazni!

Rock on! He burned libraries, slaughtered millions and raped thousands! He even beats Mahmud of Ghazni!

But does he beat Timur the Lame?

Genghis Khan, no doubt. Depending on your definition of "Monarch". Barring that, Saladin.

But does he beat Timur the Lame?

Timur? He just wiped a few cultures out.

Rock on! He burned libraries, slaughtered millions and raped thousands! He even beats Mahmud of Ghazni!

Genghis Khan was mild compared to other rulers of his day. Hell, compared to the rest of the world, Genghis Khan was enlightened, although I suppose, considering the time period, that's not saying much. But think about it, he was possibly the first ruler to introduce the idea of Religious freedom, and he was strictly anti-torture (Which is more than we can say about several modern leaders, and one who's just left office.:D)

Genghis Khan, no doubt. Depending on your definition of "Monarch". Barring that, Saladin.

There were greater Muslim monarchs; Saladin was just the most loved and well known by Christians.

Timur? He just wiped a few cultures out.

So not as good then? In that case, what about the 3rd great Asian Nomad leader, Attila? Is he better than Genghis?

and he was strictly anti-torture

Mmmm, pouring molten lead down people's throats, or having them rolled in carpet and kicked to death isn't torturous at all, is it?

There were greater Muslim monarchs; Saladin was just the most loved and well known by Christians.

Probably, I'm no expert on the history of the middle-east.

Mmmm, pouring molten lead down people's throats, or having them rolled in carpet and kicked to death isn't torturous at all, is it?

That's Ogodai Khan. Get your Khans right young sir!

That's Ogodai Khan. Get your Khans right young sir!

Nope, it was Genghis during the unification period. All Ogedai did was get pissed.

Genghis Khan was mild compared to other rulers of his day.

He managed to kill a whole lot more peoples.

Hell, compared to the rest of the world, Genghis Khan was enlightened,

Anyone who says his favorite pastime is killing husbands and watching their wives weep while you rape them is not enlightened.

although I suppose, considering the time period, that's not saying much. But think about it, he was possibly the first ruler to introduce the idea of Religious freedom,

Only because he was not religious.

and he was strictly anti-torture

Bullshit.

(Which is more than we can say about several modern leaders, and one who's just left office.:D)

I will take Bush over mighty Khan, thanks.

Kublai was a reformer, Genghis was just an effective general.

Genghis Khan was mild compared to other rulers of his day. Hell, compared to the rest of the world, Genghis Khan was enlightened, although I suppose, considering the time period, that's not saying much. But think about it, he was possibly the first ruler to introduce the idea of Religious freedom, and he was strictly anti-torture

This. Ganghis was not a monster. He was a warrior, a conquerer, and a king, and while he took no extreme action any other ruler of the time wouldnt have done, he went a step further and actually showed some respect for human dignity.

Saladin is still the man, however.

This. Ganghis was not a monster. He was a warrior, a conquerer, and a king, and while he took no extreme action any other ruler of the time wouldnt have done, he went a step further and actually showed some respect for human dignity.

Bullshit. All of it. He cut people open to find jewels, poured molten lead in their eyes and down their throats, burned entire cities to the ground, raped girls in front of their families, etc etc.

Only because he was not religious.

Wrong.



Bullshit.

He was. http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h11mon.htm

It mentions his ban on torture and his law that forbid selling women into marriage. Simply googling "Ganghis Khan on torture" yields TONS of results.

Bullshit. All of it. He cut people open to find jewels,

And the Spanish had rats eat through people's stomachs.

poured molten lead in their eyes and down their throats,

Burning at the stake.

burned entire cities to the ground,

Yes. No other conquerer did that.

raped girls in front of their families, etc etc.

Orly?

I suggest you start learning history. Like I said. Ganghis was no more a monster than any other Monarch.

Mmmm, pouring molten lead down people's throats, or having them rolled in carpet and kicked to death isn't torturous at all, is it?

He considered it paying respect to the executed since there was no actual bloodshed involved.

Nope, it was Genghis during the unification period. All Ogedai did was get pissed.
Nope. It was under Ogodai's watch that one of Genghis Khan's generals conquered some part of Russia, bound their princes in carpets, and stomped them to death.
He managed to kill a whole lot more peoples.

Because he conquered a lot more land. He conquered almost all of Asia in just a few years, there was bound to be mroe bloodshed than with say... Any one leader of the Romans, who conquered everything they had over a period of one-thousand or so years (Not counting the days of the Roman Kingdom).

Anyone who says his favorite pastime is killing husbands and watching their wives weep while you rape them is not enlightened.

You've been listening to too many 18th century plays and not enough actual history. That quote was never actually made by Genghis Khan, but was used as a symbol for the French king at that time.

Only because he was not religious.

He was. He was an animist, he prayed to the mountains and the sky.

Bullshit.

Show me where he tortured anyone.

I will take Bush over mighty Khan, thanks.

Kublai was a reformer, Genghis was just an effective general.
Kublai was better, I had forgotten about him. However, that doesn't make all of this BS about Genghis Khan being a torturing, raping monster justified.

he was possibly the first ruler to introduce the idea of Religious freedom

Arguably Frederick II did it first;)

Bullshit. All of it. He cut people open to find jewels, poured molten lead in their eyes and down their throats, burned entire cities to the ground, raped girls in front of their families, etc etc.

What are you smoking? I want some!:tongue:

Like I said. Ganghis was no more a monster than any other Monarch.

He was worse than quite a lot, and certainly was far ahead on terms of scale, if nothing else.

He was worse than quite a lot,

He was better then quite a lot too. But he was a ton more effective then most Europian kings at getting things done. And on average, he wasnt any more of a monster.

and certainly was far ahead on terms of scale, if nothing else.

Still gonna say no.

What are you smoking? I want some!:tongue:

Read your history, he cut open a woman after the siege of Merv, I think it was Merv anyway, because she had swallowed her pearls, then ordered the rest of the prisoners to be cut open to see if they had done the same.

But he was a ton more effective then most Europian kings at getting things done.

I suppose that might be way he's remembered as a monster, just because nobody dared cross him after made an example of somebody/somewhere.


Still gonna say no.

Oh come on, you didn't see Henry V riding thousands of miles away from home and burning down entire towns. Genghis did things on a much larger scale than the Europeans.

Arguably Frederick II did it first;)

Fredrick the second of...?

Read your history, he cut open a woman after the siege of Merv, I think it was Merv anyway, because she had swallowed her pearls, then ordered the rest of the prisoners to be cut open to see if they had done the same.

Source.

Fredrick the second of...?

Prussia.

Prussia.

He wasn't born till 1717.

Rock on! He burned libraries, slaughtered millions and raped thousands! He even beats Mahmud of Ghazni!
Great doesn't mean good, mind you.
Genghis Khan was mild compared to other rulers of his day. Hell, compared to the rest of the world, Genghis Khan was enlightened, although I suppose, considering the time period, that's not saying much. But think about it, he was possibly the first ruler to introduce the idea of Religious freedom, and he was strictly anti-torture (Which is more than we can say about several modern leaders, and one who's just left office.:D)
And then there's this!

Oh come on, you didn't see Henry V riding thousands of miles away from home and burning down entire towns.

No, but any King who crusaded did. Besides, Henry V just went to France to do it ;)

Fredrick the second of...?

The Holy Roman Empire and Sicily. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor

The Holy Roman Empire and Sicily. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor
Seems rather close, timewise, and it seems, to me at least, that Fredrick II was less 'Religious Freedom' and more 'Screw the Pope! I'll do whatever I want!'.

Seems rather close, timewise, and it seems, to me at least, that Fredrick II was less 'Religious Freedom' and more 'Screw the Pope! I'll do whatever I want!'.

Well, he allowed you to be a practicing Muslim or Jew, and for 13th century Europe that was a big deal:p

Well, he allowed you to be a practicing Muslim or Jew, and for 13th century Europe that was a big deal:p

The gay marriage issue of the thirteenth century :p.

...because such a thread had to appear, sooner or later. As in the title, it's like "post your favourite European monarch", only for non-European ones. Includes these who ruled parts of Europe, but hailed from non-European cultures (this means arabs, Turks etc.).

And please don't write too much on Emperor Norton, it's a bit too obvious.

All the caliphates established in Spain while the Moors where there. 800+ years, y'all!

Timur? He just wiped a few cultures out.

Timur killed 100,000 people and made a mountain of skulls on the day he sacked Delhi.

From wiki
Timur himself recorded the invasions in his memoirs, collectively known as Tuzk-e-Taimuri‎.[5][15][17] In them, he vividly described the massacre at Delhi:

In a short space of time all the people in the Delhi fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers. They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground....All these infidel Hindus were slain, their women and children, and their property and goods became the spoil of the victors. I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death.

One hundred thousand infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasiruddin Umar, a counselor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives....on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolaters and enemies of Islam at liberty... no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword.

Timur killed 100,000 people and made a mountain of skulls on the day he sacked Delhi.

From wiki

100,000? Genghis often had millions put to death. And let us not forget the fun time he had in Peking; remember how many gals just killed themselves in keen anticipation of his arrival?

Emperor Palpatine...

http://weblogs.newsday.com/entertainment/tv/blog/palpatine.jpg

Because he conquered a lot more land. He conquered almost all of Asia in just a few years, there was bound to be mroe bloodshed than with say... Any one leader of the Romans, who conquered everything they had over a period of one-thousand or so years (Not counting the days of the Roman Kingdom).

Which is why Augustus is my favorite Roman.

You've been listening to too many 18th century plays and not enough actual history. That quote was never actually made by Genghis Khan, but was used as a symbol for the French king at that time.

Yes, a Muslim philosopher asked him what gave him pleasure. But honestly, even if you will Genghis Khan did say it, you might tell me he just said it to frighten his foes. Let us stick to actions.

He was. He was an animist, he prayed to the mountains and the sky.

...

Show me where he tortured anyone.

You said he was strictly against torture, which I said was poppycock. You tried to compare a man, who killed more innocents than Hitler did, to Bush.

Kublai was better, I had forgotten about him. However, that doesn't make all of this BS about Genghis Khan being a torturing, raping monster justified.

Then by your standards Stalin is progressive. He essentially did the same thing Genghis Khan did: He built a powerful empire, and killed millions of innocent men, women and children to do it.

Great doesn't mean good, mind you.

It that case, I present:

http://courses.missouristate.edu/Dennishickey/mao.gif

"Great leader" of the East!

He was better then quite a lot too. But he was a ton more effective then most Europian kings at getting things done. And on average, he wasnt any more of a monster.

If "getting things done" is stealing, burning, killing, and raping.

Still gonna say no.

Tens of millions?

Seems rather close, timewise, and it seems, to me at least, that Fredrick II was less 'Religious Freedom' and more 'Screw the Pope! I'll do whatever I want!'.

But he allowed freedom of speech, period.

Emperor Norton. Khan also gets my respect, given how he turned a bunch of nomadic horsemen into an unstoppable army.

Rameses II and Saladin

EDIT: If Roman Emperors count, Augustus.

Kamehameha.

Kamehameha.

Is it sad that the first thing to come into my mind was this.

http://www.thedaoofdragonball.com/img/Blog/Articles/Goku-Powering-Up-Kamehameha.jpg

Kamehameha.

No, no, no, no....

The Monarch in that show was this guy...

http://images.gametrailers.com/images/userposters/123361-2703-VegetaMBgt2.jpg

I suggest you follow him, lol :p

Arguably Frederick II did it firstNot so arguably, the entirety of pre-abrahamitic religions in the near east & the mediterranean were first, since they had a habit of simply identifying foreign gods with their own, and if not, then at least frequently incorporating them into their belief systems. The only exception I'm aware of being the Jews (Though, in fairness, while they were less tolerant, they were also less inclined to dabble in human sacrifice).

Bullshit. All of it. He cut people open to find jewels, poured molten lead in their eyes and down their throats, burned entire cities to the ground, raped girls in front of their families, etc etc.

All that is unimportant. What is important is that he conquered the largest contiguous land empire in history in a very short time span.

'sides, he was a product of his age.

Any Caliph of classical Baghdad (before mongol invasion) will do.
Also Cleopatra.
And Emperor Meiji (for the Meiji restoration).

EDIT: If Roman Emperors count, Augustus.

I daresay Augustus counts as European.

One of Timur, Chingis, Shapur I or Darius.

Monctezuma I, of Aztec era Mexico.

It that case, I present:
http://courses.missouristate.edu/Dennishickey/mao.gif
"Great leader" of the East!
In which case, you fail, for Mao wasn't a monarch.

In which case, you fail, for Mao wasn't a monarch.

give the writers of history in china some time.

give the writers of history in china some time.
And during that time, they'll start proclaiming that the Chinese Empire didn't become a republic and later the People's Republic which, all of a sudden, was led by Emperor Mao? I think not!

In which case, you fail, for Mao wasn't a monarch.

Technically? no. Technically, neither were Julius, and Augustus, Cæsar

Technically? no. Technically, neither were Julius, and Augustus, Cæsar
Never said they were. They were dictators. Especially the Roman ones wouldn't dare proclaim themselves king, given Roman history.

Azathoth.

And during that time, they'll start proclaiming that the Chinese Empire didn't become a republic and later the People's Republic which, all of a sudden, was led by Emperor Mao? I think not!

just become another change in dynasty. could see this as they slip away from communism and look for some tradition to hold them together. It will of course be changed to a constitutional empire. rather then full blown empire.
They have already altered history to claim half of Korea was theirs (likely to seize it when it collapses.)

Never said they were. They were dictators. Especially the Roman ones wouldn't dare proclaim themselves king, given Roman history.

Then "monarch" is just a title? or someone who inherited his power?

Monctezuma I, of Aztec era Mexico.

That guy was a genocidal maniac.

King Kong.

One of Timur, Chingis, Shapur I or Darius.

I forgot him.

Tokugawa Ieyasu.
Tokugawa was never a monarch.

As for Meiji... Honestly, he was the bright and shiny figurehead for a whole bunch of incredibly talented people. Not to say that he himself didn't do anything or at least lived the life that he THOUGHT an enlightened and benevolent monarch should live, but most of Japan's advancement during the Meiji Restoration, the restoration itself, the Meiji Constitution and the Charter Oath can be traced back to the group of men that came from Satsuma and Choushuu.

Genghis Khan though managed to make, and keep, a great empire.

Genghis Khan was mild compared to other rulers of his day. Hell, compared to the rest of the world, Genghis Khan was enlightened, although I suppose, considering the time period, that's not saying much. But think about it, he was possibly the first ruler to introduce the idea of Religious freedom, and he was strictly anti-torture (Which is more than we can say about several modern leaders, and one who's just left office.:D)

Buh? The man was a butcher, and the troops he commanded were no better. Live crucifications (nailing people to ships) were just one of the methods he used to torture people. He exploited fear and terror, spreading it wherever he could as a demoralizing weapon. Was he worse than his neighbors? Probably not much. But that hardly makes him enlightened.

And why does high bodycount = great leader? I don't get the reasoning. By that counting, Stalin must have been the best leader of all time.

Well, I submit that the opinions of the people he/she ruled to be the deciding factor of "Great"...

Hence, I choose Napoleon Bonaparte...

That guy was a genocidal maniac.

Doesn't mean he was a great non-European monarch for the Mexicans. Vlad Tepes was a murderer and the Romanian still consider him a national hero.

Well, I submit that the opinions of the people he/she ruled to be the deciding factor of "Great"...

Hence, I choose Napoleon Bonaparte...

And I would fully back that decision, had I not read the title of the thread.

Tokugawa was never a monarch.

I care to differ: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/monarch

How do you define "monarch"?

How about the Pope?

Doesn't mean he was a great non-European monarch for the Mexicans. Vlad Tepes was a murderer and the Romanian still consider him a national hero.

And Stalin is often considered a hero in Russia.

How about the Pope?

Is he not European?

Is he not European?At the very least, the first one wasn't born European.

And Stalin is often considered a hero in Russia.

Ayup.

well he was not exactly a Monarch, but how about Uesugi Kenshin?

well he was not exactly a Monarch, but how about Uesugi Kenshin?

Tell me, please, please, that this has nothing to do with anime...:eek2: It doesn't, right? Nah. It doesn't.:D

Tell me, please, please, that this has nothing to do with anime...:eek2: It doesn't, right? Nah. It doesn't.:D

Of course it doesn't. Just mere coincedence. Move along :p

Of course it doesn't. Just mere coincedence. Move along :p

Just in case...
Yes, you weren't referring to anime. Good lad!:tongue:

Just in case...
Yes, you weren't referring to anime. Good lad!:tongue:

I know my history missy! I have not spent days on end reading history texts to do something as foolish as to refer to an anime for a great monarch :p

I know my history missy! I have not spent days on end reading history texts to do something as foolish as to refer to an anime for a great monarch :p

You better know your history, mister. Or there'll be hell to pay!http://ganjataz.com/smileys/01-grayball/images/gt-oddgrayball-spank.gif

You better know your history, mister. Or there'll be hell to pay!http://ganjataz.com/smileys/01-grayball/images/gt-oddgrayball-spank.gif

I do know it, and yesterday I finally got the fifty european countries down. However, I have until Tuesday to learn the capitals, which I don't have down :(

I do know it, and yesterday I finally got the fifty european countries down. However, I have until Tuesday to learn the capitals, which I don't have down :(

Then, what in tarnation are you doing wasting time on NSG? Go, cram! The great, European capitals await you!!

Then, what in tarnation are you doing wasting time on NSG? Go, cram! The great, European capitals await you!!

NSG is soo much more fun than studying though!

NSG is soo much more fun than studying though!

This evidences that NSG has your soul. You can never escape.:(

This evidences that NSG has your soul. You can never escape.:(

Well if that is the case, want a jellybean?

Well if that is the case, want a jellybean?

Sure. :D

Sure. :D

*splits bag of Starburst tropical jellybeans in half*
Here you go. :p

*splits bag of Starburst tropical jellybeans in half*
Here you go. :p

Why, thank you.:tongue:
*accepts jellybeans*

Why, thank you.:tongue:
*accepts jellybeans*

You are quite welcome. Now, time carve myself out a nice little kingdom with the government in such dissaray.

Which is why Augustus is my favorite Roman.

He didn't conquer all that land. It was slowly accumulated over hundreds of years.

Yes, a Muslim philosopher asked him what gave him pleasure. But honestly, even if you will Genghis Khan did say it, you might tell me he just said it to frighten his foes. Let us stick to actions.

It was a goddamn play, one who's real purpose was to use Genghis Khan as a symbol for the French King, so the playwrite didn't have to lose his head (literally). What part of that is so hard to understand?

You said he was strictly against torture, which I said was poppycock.

Nope. The man was strictly against torture, although admittedly not against killing.
You tried to compare a man, who killed more innocents than Hitler did, to Bush.
Hitler killed 17 million innocents. Genghis Khan killed about 3 million people, and that's including both armies and civilians. Bush allowed torture. Genghis Khan, however, did not.

Buh? The man was a butcher, and the troops he commanded were no better. Live crucifications (nailing people to ships) were just one of the methods he used to torture people. He exploited fear and terror, spreading it wherever he could as a demoralizing weapon. Was he worse than his neighbors? Probably not much. But that hardly makes him enlightened.

And why does high bodycount = great leader? I don't get the reasoning. By that counting, Stalin must have been the best leader of all time.

What? Genghis Khan was strictly against torture. His sons and successors were not, but he was. He used fear to convince towns to surrender, ending a large amount of needless bloodshed. But he did not torture.

And where did I say he was a great leader because of how many people he killed?
Genghis Khan was mild compared to other rulers of his day. Hell, compared to the rest of the world, Genghis Khan was enlightened, although I suppose, considering the time period, that's not saying much. But think about it, he was possibly the first ruler to introduce the idea of Religious freedom, and he was strictly anti-torture (Which is more than we can say about several modern leaders, and one who's just left office.)

He didn't conquer all that land. It was slowly accumulated over hundreds of years.

And Augustus stopped the idiotic "conquering", reforming the system and bringing peace.

It was a goddamn play, one who's real purpose was to use Genghis Khan as a symbol for the French King, so the playwrite didn't have to lose his head (literally). What part of that is so hard to understand?

Source?

Nope. The man was strictly against torture, although admittedly not against killing.

Which he did much of. Murder is murder.

Hitler killed 17 million innocents. Genghis Khan killed about 3 million people, and that's including both armies and civilians.

Try 20,000,000, because that is where virtually all accredited estimates end-up.

Bush allowed torture. Genghis Khan, however, did not.

I prefer a few being water boarded to millions dead. Anyway, yea for Stalin, eh?

And where did I say he was a great leader because of how many people he killed?

You are virtually saying he is a great leader due to all the lands he conquered. Stealing lands requires murder.

And Augustus stopped the idiotic "conquering", reforming the system and bringing peace.

Only because he lost three legions in the forests of Germany. If he hadn't they would have kept expanding.

Source?

Wrong play, I was thinking of another quote. Even so, I can't find that quote. Mind giving me the full thing? (not trying to bug you, I just can't find the quote)

Which he did much of. Murder is murder.

As opposed to...? We're talking about the best non-European monarch, not a 'good' one. That sort of thing was common back then, but he didn't draw arbitrary lines.

Genghis Khan: "And you?"
Guy #1: "I'm a Christian, and you're an animist."
Genghis Khan: "Move along. You?"
Guy #2: "I refused to surrender when you besieged my town."
Genghis Khan: Ooo, sorry, can't have you turning against me in the future. Guards?"

And at the very least, he allowed those who surrendered to live, even if the entire town didn't surrender.


Try 20,000,000, because that is where virtually all accredited estimates end-up.

Source?

I prefer a few being water boarded to millions dead. Anyway, yea for Stalin, eh?
Stalin wasn't a monarch, and he arguably was European. I've been argueing that Genghis Khan was the best, because he wasn't as bad as the rest of them.
You are virtually saying he is a great leader due to all the lands he conquered. Stealing lands requires murder.
I'm saying he was teh best non-European MONARCH because he united a large amount of land, stopped a lot of petty squabbling, and generally improved things among the ones still living

Only because he lost three legions in the forests of Germany. If he hadn't they would have kept expanding.

A good ruler is as a good ruler does, not as he feels. Richard Nixon and the Cesare Borgia were fairly nasty persons, but both were reformers.

Wrong play, I was thinking of another quote. Even so, I can't find that quote. Mind giving me the full thing? (not trying to bug you, I just can't find the quote)

The quote is occasionally translated with different wording: "The greatest pleasure is to vanquish one's enemies and chase them before one, to rob them of their wealth and see those dear to them bathed in tears, to ride their horses and clasp to one's bosom their wives and daughters."

As opposed to...? We're talking about the best non-European monarch, not a 'good' one. That sort of thing was common back then, but he didn't draw arbitrary lines.

The fact is that the amount of death he caused far outweighed any good he accomplished. I referenced Borgia earlier, who was also a murderer. The difference? Borgia assassinated those who would do the same to him, but did not allow his troops to kill non-combatants or plunder cities.

Genghis Khan: "And you?"
Guy #1: "I'm a Christian, and you're an animist."
Genghis Khan: "Move along. You?"
Guy #2: "I refused to surrender when you besieged my town."
Genghis Khan: Ooo, sorry, can't have you turning against me in the future. Guards?"

Tolerance toward religion was very common in Asia.

And at the very least, he allowed those who surrendered to live, even if the entire town didn't surrender.

Then I suppose that justifies of the killing of some because he would not surrender his money and wife?


Source?

50 Military Leaders Who Changed the World, by William Weir.

Stalin wasn't a monarch, and he arguably was European. I've been argueing that Genghis Khan was the best, because he wasn't as bad as the rest of them.

If you are comparing him to Europe, he killed more than most of Europe leaders of time combined. If you are comparing him to Asia, I would say Chinese leaders tended to be far more enlightened, though they had their occasional Neros.

I'm saying he was teh best non-European MONARCH because he united a large amount of land, stopped a lot of petty squabbling,

I prefer "petty squabbling" to mass murder.

and generally improved things among the ones still living

Made a desert and called it "peace", as the saying goes?