Who was the greatest leader in history? | Dan Carlin and Lex Fridman
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2025
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Dan Carlin: Hardcore H...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
Athletic Greens: athleticgreens... and use code LEX to get free vitamin D
SimpliSafe: simplisafe.com... and use code LEX to get a free security camera
Magic Spoon: magicspoon.com... and use code LEX to get free shipping
Cash App: cash.app/ and use code LexPodcast to get $10
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com...
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com...
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
CONNECT:
Subscribe to this UA-cam channel
Twitter: / lexfridman
LinkedIn: / lexfridman
Facebook: / lexfridmanpage
Instagram: / lexfridman
Medium: / lexfridman
Support on Patreon: / lexfridman
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
easy it’s Aragorn son of Arathorn
Gondor needs no king!....
@@ProjectLukeMurphy ISILDUUUUUUR!! !!
@@macaronisalad11 Aragorn? This is Isildur's heir?
Easy
Nope, like Carlin says Aragorn inherited the throne. Yes he had some bumps along the way, but he wasn't a truly self made man.
Alexander led from the front also and got injured all the time. While having the best army, he faced overwhelmingly lopsided odds with him having far less numbers than his enemies and still being able to remain undefeated in battle. His tactics are still being studied at military schools. Good point though on the analogy of starting on third base.
Yeah despite his great start, he is still deserves lot of credit as lot of leaders inherited a great empire and just can't keep it or even downright squander it. Not a put down to these leaders as it is a massive undertaking to follow up the steps of great leaders. Succession times were pretty unstable times, so I give credit to Alexander (and his mom) at keeping the great things his father had left and make something with it.
Although outside his military achievements, he wasn't as great at administration. He didn't leave a clear successor in order to give his newly won empire a chance to stick together, so I consider this a bigger minus than having a great start. Again not a put down on him, as he died a little too premature.
In this aspect I think a leader like Cyrus/Kūruš the Great (which Alexander probably respected) is more well rounded, for instance. Cyrus probably would be as studied if we had better records of his campaigns.
@@ddwkc very true. Supposedly his final words on who his kingdom should go to “were to the strongest” and we saw how that turned out. He was horribly sick and could barely speak at that point too. I believe his lands were divided by 3 of his generals. Most notably Ptolemy and his line got Egypt. Alexander actually had two sons, but they each died before reaching adulthood so they weren’t able to rule. I can’t remember if one or both got assassinated. He also died on the cusp of being 33 years old which I’m sure he wasn’t expecting. He wasn’t the best when his wars were over and was known for drunkenness and extreme anger including the burning of Persepolis. He has plans to start conquering again before he died and I’ll always wonder if he could still be as successful. He was also heavily into adopting and respecting another’s culture with his tendency towards Persian clothes and customs especially. His Greek peers thought it was a bit excessive, but he seemed surprisingly tolerant towards a lot of the people he conquered whether they be Persian, Egyptian, Indian, etc. Such an interesting guy and someone I’d consider one of the top five at the very least or top three shapers of history in the world.
Phillip II so underrated
Man the only B I received in speech class was the speech i did on Alexander. Not because it was bad....but because I went over by 12 minutes making it 18 minutes long! Haha. Such a fascinating time in history.
Exactly, people will always try to discredit. How many celebrities start a clothing line thinking it will be great and it sinks? You know what I mean? It doesn't mean shit if you start with a lot of money or powerful parents. It's actually harder because you have everything you need, and it becomes much more easy to loose motivation and drive.
These guys need to do a podcast every month. The chemistry is perfect
Never thought it like that but dam you are right!
Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the 19th century ruler of the Sikh Empire in India, has beaten competition from around the world to be named the "Greatest Leader of All Time" in a poll conducted by ‘BBC World Histories Magazine'.
Over 5,000 readers voted in the poll. Polling more than 38 per cent of the vote, Singh was praised for creating a new tolerant empire
Completely agree!
I also loved some other conversations such as;
Michael Malice and him have a good(albeit awkward) back and forth and they challenge each other is seemingly comical and enlightening at the same time.
Why ignore Lincoln?
@@ssraghavan1956 the union was torn apart by his presidency and wasn't restored in his lifetime.
'Great men are often not good men' very apt quote looking broadly at history's most influential actors. It's also why, for me, Marcus Aurelius stands out from most historical figures. He was philosophical and introspective, but also responsible and pro active in his duty to the Roman people. Meditations provides an incredible insight in the daily thoughts of someone who tried, above all else, to keep himself on the truest path he could conceive of. He's still my personal hero. The fact that he allowed his sociopath of a son to succeed him is so irrational and ill conceived that it honestly allows me to relate to him more. Despite all of his virtues, he had biases and blind spots, like the rest of us. He gets my vote every day of the week. Great discussion.
Dude, couldn't agree more.
Let us not forget Publius Cornelius Scipio who brought Rome back from the brink in a masterful campaign that evolved the Roman army. Who along with being a great leader was also a philosopher and politician. In the end, although given every honor from Rome was deposed by the very state that he saved because he stood up to the corruption that he saw in the senate.
The scene in Gladiator when Marcus Aurelius says to his son " Your faults as a son are my failures as a father" perfectly illustrate this and turns the figure of Marcus Aurelius that much more human.
Marcus was too reasonable to be a great leader, as crazy as it sounds. His struggle to secure the outer border proves this. He wasted years of his life out on campaign because, essentially, he was soft and lacked killer instinct. The whole ordeal with his son also illustrates this. Marcus was a great thinker, but a poor leader. Put against Ceasar, in any relevant capacity of leadership, whether that be governance or military, and he would be no match. Smart enough to find the solution, not sharp enough to execute.
The fact that you can relate to marcus is a testament that he isn't a great leader. Can you relate to Alexander? Someone who conquered the entire know world. Can you conceive what he mustve been thinking? Probably not. Neither can I. So great, you cannot even imagine his thoughts.
Aurelian is so underrated. Dude restored the entire Roman empire. Taking back lost provinces one by one
Trouble was, he was killed because his own men feared his wrath. The officers were mistaken, but to them they thought that being fired would also mean their deaths. Aurelian geographically reunited the empire, but couldn’t unit all his men under him
Not plugging, more just being friendly.
simon scarrow books are great on the Roman empire fiction if you have time for it
Who never heard of him I thought all the commanders were at each other’s throats at one point
@@martinconway8174 no one does
Alexander the great and Hannibal are the greatest generals/leaders of all time.
Skip Bayless would have said Michael Jordan.
Bayless is pathetic
And he wouldn't be wrong
@@benweagle23 I'm sure the Bobcats agree with you.
Theres only ONE KING JAMES
Depends on how he's feeling about Lebron James that day.
Dan's voice is perfect for his podcast. He is an amazing storyteller.
I’ve said that again....and again....and again.....and again....to all my friends
@@Enahseladsit I think he sounds really stupid. He's so slow too.
His voice IS his podcast… lol
Dan Carlin got me through some seriously long drives to and from work and college back in the day. Hardcore history is one of the best things ever made.
Yes!!!
For real!!
He’s an idiot
Agreed listened to the Mongul series like 8 times 😂
Napoleon was a self made emperor.
Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the 19th century ruler of the Sikh Empire in India, has beaten competition from around the world to be named the "Greatest Leader of All Time" in a poll conducted by ‘BBC World Histories Magazine'.
Over 5,000 readers voted in the poll. Polling more than 38 per cent of the vote, Singh was praised for creating a new tolerant empire
@@brodocassel 'self made ruler of an empire'
@@brodocassel napoleon who?
@@brodocassel likewise
@Hades the great edgy
Khan grew up outside the village with his mother. Down by the river
In a van
@@itsnicetoseeyou It was a caravan.
Village is so not Mongolian
In a yurt down by the river
Or so the germans would have u believe
I agree that Philip set the stage for Alexander but never in a million years would Philip have imagined going as far as Alexander did and being outnumbered in all his battles and a lot of them would’ve been lost if it wasn’t for Alexander’s strategic acumen and the loyalty he inspired in his soldiers
Yeah I agree Carlin is too dismissive of Alexander. Plenty of people inherited fortunes and armies and screwed up entirely, it’s not as easy as he makes it out to be.
I agree was surprised that Philip was being touted as greater than Alexander.
@@HAWSHPAWZ-GAMEZcause he is, without Phillip there is no alexander, plain and simple, Phillip gave Alexander the best teachers at the time and brought him along battles, he gave Alexander everything to be great, and he used everything perfectly.
@@lordsotelo44_ he was great but he definitely never imagined what his son would go on to do. Especially with how young he passed away as well. True there is no Alexander without his father but Alexander definitely eclipsed his father's legacy.
@@HAWSHPAWZ-GAMEZ well he did actually imagine it, he was the one who planned the campaign into persia, he never had the chance to actually do so obviously because he wanted to make sure his kingdom was absolutely stable before leaving to anatolia and beyond. He was an ample leader/general and with alexander beside him he could’ve absolutely taken the Persian empire and maybe more.
Never get why Cyrus never gets mentioned in these type of discussions. Literally did what Alex did but actually ruled an empire for a longer period and a left a stronger lasting foundation and legacy for the empire he started.
There is unfortunately an anti-eastern agenda when it comes to history. Cyrus The Great is the only leader in history that literally has the Great in his name rightfully. Just look at how they made a movie about the savages of Sparta and how they depicted Xerxes, Cyrus’s grandson. Persians were the civilized people and Europeans were the savages. This fact really bothers the west so they blatantly plagiarize the history.
King of Kings might still be my favourite Hardcore History
Religous reasons. Iranians stood for some firm beliefs and moral values, greeks didnt.
To be fair, Cyrus lived til he was 70, Alexander died at 32.
The great
Speaking about morals, a great leader and philosophy and no mention of Marcus Aurelius?
Was looking for this. The others they mentioned were slaves to their ambition, Marcus truly was a good man
@@totkop2156 "good man" is subjective. Even in his own words, to paraphrase, argue no more what a good man should be, just be one. Besides, Marcus Aurelius terrorised many Germanic tribes. Don't confuse his meditations for a reflection of his policy.
@@BallyBoy95 is the real kim jong un
@@herbthompson8937 Actually he nominated Maximus Decimus Meridius
Didn't he lose his empire?
Augustus Caesar easily. Only 4 years into his rule as first Roman Emperor, the dude created the longest period of peace and stability ever recorded in the Western hemisphere (200 years under the Pax Romana). This was achieved during the classical age; aka brutal antiquity. People don't realize how utterly *INSANE* an accomplishment like that truly is. He forged the empire after Caesar was assassinated and oversaw the golden age of the Romans.
Warned against overexpansion, banished his THOT of a daughter, found Rome a city of brick and left her one of marble, etc... etc...
We have a month named after the guy for crying out loud.
Wasn't he Julius Caesar's nephew?
Ok the western world the new world is hardly known ab or even looked into its history
Close, the correct answer is Julius
@@ether23-23 yes he is the nephew of Gaius Julius Ceasar
@MB
Yeah. Similar situation to Philip and Alexander. Augustus was also a poor military man and often delegated command. But his political mind far outshone Julius's
Napleon Bonaparte did *a lot* as one human being. Basically created modern day Europe out the ashes of his empire. Yes, known military general but he also did *a lot* of administrative work. He also was never given anything other than a military school during revolutionary France as a privilege, other than that he pretty much conquered Europe and held it for awhile. I just don't believe fudealism would of been abolished as fast as it would across Europe without his actions whether directly or all the way up into the Russian Revolution with serfs. It was just so critical to common enlightenment.
That said he still had all the bodies and blunders of any man in total power and it's always easier to discuss the pros when the deaths are basically too old and detached from today's reality.
All the bodies of the Napoleonic wars I do not believe are at the feet of Napoleon, theyre with the extended inbred royal family that controlled Europe. The war was between them and the common Frenchman, and that is quite a conflict. They were supposed to be omnipotent for so long, the wars were so bloody because Napoleon was so good, not because he was so vicious, it was the Royals that wouldnt leave france alone because they were afraid of the threat to their power.
The Emperor was obviously the greatest leader of all time
Napoleon was a Visconti on his mother's side, and the Viscontis are a subfamily of the Sforzas of Milan. Napoleon was a direct descendant of the guy Machiavelli made immortal in his book "The Prince". He was by far not the self-made man everybody thinks, especially when you realis that Napoleon become famous for pacifying northern Italy. Sforza Land.
Like him or not, Mohammed’s accomplishments are second to none. Started as an unknown orphan in the desert and in one way or another has influenced the world for the last 1450 years. He's litteraly effected every part of the world.
I mean you could say the same about Jesus or Genghis Khan
How does Noone mention Marcus!? A man from humble beginnings, arguably the most powerful leader ever. And ruled with duality. Fierce leader with empathy and compassion
I second Marcus personally. Meditations and his perspectives within have been shaping my life for years, and likely will for the rest of my life. An amazing man
@@adamfrancourt8631 Meditations changed my life as well. Sadly, Commodus completely destroys the legacy of Marcus
He was a leader who wasn't considered inspirational until hundreds of years after his death.
His own son didn't follow his teachings.
@@KJBWorldI call bs put you in some destitute situations with no recourse and we'll see how well that bs stoicism works for ya
@@jgvtc559 Interestingly enough one of the principles of stoicism is controlling anger. I have been destitute and I have overcome.
Hannibal of Carthage is my personal pick through feats. Imagine the face of the Romans seeing Elephants in the battlefield in their homeland or hearing of Hannibals victory at Cannae. He wiped out an entire generation of Romans, outnumbered approx 10:1. All this with no support from home or his political class.
Get a copy of "Hannibal" by Gisbert Haefs. Best historical novel I ever read.
@@pablom-f8762 Was it translated to English? Can't find it in the usual places.
Came here to say this!!! He doesn't get near enough respect, this man backed the greatest empire this world has ever seen, tf up
Absolutely, the battle of cannae was a work of art, Rome should have capitulated after that battle, and by the standards of that time was considered completely defeated. Unfortunately for Hannibal he didn’t have the means to siege the city. Hannibal never lost a battle contrary to what historians pro Rome say, that he lost the battle of Zama in modern Tunisia. As you know history is written by the winners. The Romans hated him so much that they kept running after the man until his death even though he wasn’t a general anymore.
@@dakotaslim me too
Dan Carlin is a treasure of our time. That man absolutely loves history and his enthusiasm is infectious.
I listen to him daily!
@@FNGPREPPERyeah but it's clear he hasn't thought a lot of things true or makes very normie mistakes like alexander would have great no matter what.
@@lampad4549I understand your point however Dan always says he’s not an historian he’s a fan of history. I personally think Julius Caesar should be in the conversation but I’m not an historian either.
Nahhhh u all are doomed
He’s an idiot
This was a great conversation. The whole session!
There’s a good reason the Romans had so much respect for Alexander.
He has the best ratio of victories of all time with 22 wins and 0 losses conquering up to 40% the world’s population. He didn’t even get a chance to rule from home, and yet he brilliantly adopted the customs of the cultures he conquered to become more accepted, becoming the pharaoh of Egypt, king of Persia, etc. while also hellenizing the known world. He founded over a dozen cities and several important trade routes that basically connected the West to India and China, and founded what would become the largest metropolis of the world at the time (Alexandria) all in 6 years. He didn’t even get the chance to a secure a long lasting empire, and still, many historians argue that his legacy is unmatched.
What are you talking about??? At a stretch, Alexander won 13 battles and the general with the best win to loss ratio would be Khalid, followed by Subudei and then Wellesley.
I'd like to see Dan Carlin and Mike Tyson go back and fourth about great leader/conquerors.
Napoleon from a purely battlefield perspective. The magnitude of his rise and amount of power at his apex while fighting multiple coalitions over a decade. Also, his career occurred recently enough to be scrutinized in a way that can’t be done with other popular answers to this question.
It's not only his battlefield achievements that are impressive. I heard a podcast recently in which he was called the architect of the Enlightenment.
He fundamentally changed Europe, bringing Enlightenment values and building a new state model. Much of our European freedoms and rights find the origin in Napoleon.
He has so much overlap with Julius Caesar. Both formidable battlefield commanders, but also statesmen with a profound and lasting impact on humanity.
@@arjanv45 napoleon built the structure on which many countries today function. Law, warfare, civic and social norms ect..
The most impressive aspect of Napoleon to me was how he stabilized a complete mess of a nation that had just undergone complete violent cultural upheaval with radical altering of its entire social structure. He did this without alienating most of the elites, but still managed to retain enormous support among the French citizenry, who hated the elites. Extremely rare to find someone who can achieve this balance. Most revolutions end up with complete victory of one of these groups, then the purges start. Instead, he not only brings political stability, he ends up leading this weakened and vulnerable country to rule almost all of continental Europe, albeit briefly. His influence was so great that the era is literally called the Napoleonic era.
Khalid in al Walid > Napoleon
@@mohamedredaabdou495nobody heard lf him so it speaks for itself how big he was
Lex: “Dam, what your opinion on Taco Tuesday?”
Dan: “Alexander The Great!”
Genguis Khan, simply because he’s one of the few conquerors in history that after his dead his empire didn’t fall, it became even more powerful because of the Pax Mongolica his son Toloui created because of his father’s will, it was perfected by his grandson Kublai…also his empire was the greatest of all time in terms of conquered land from all of China and Korea all the way to the plains of Hungary..
Where is his empire now ?
@@unchiudaantv The greatest monument on earth was built to try keep him out.
@@unchiudaantv 😂
@@unchiudaantv did mongols rekt your muslim ancestors 😅😅😅😅😅
Russia took it@@unchiudaantv
I love listening to Dan Carlin - he made history come alive for me.
I'm no historian but saying that Philip was greater than Alexander is strange to me. Philip set the stage for Alexander by building and revolutionizing his military but what Alexander did was remarkable. One of the most interesting people from history and arguably the best leader.
Exactly. I love Philip, and I think he's incredibly underrated, but saying Alexander wasn't as great as him is wild. Philip tried to invade Persia and failed, Alexander did that and a million more. People were handed similar to Alexander and nobody has ever done what he's done. General, Soldier, Leader. The Great.
@@loganholly8401 did phillip make an attempt to invade persia? I thought he was assasinated before that
@@wahedsnel7813 You're totally right, don't know why I thought that. I think my point still stands on Alexander truly being the greatest of the greats, but I was wrong at that.
@@loganholly8401 no worries, has dan carlin done a series about Alexander too? i want to know more about him
What Phillip did was also
Remarkable. Go read about the man.
One very underrated leader in history: Timoleon of Corinth. Look him up or read his plutarch biography. The guy single-handedly saved a city and island from internal tyranny and external threat of conquest, then established a government that led to decades of peace and prosperity until Rome came and conquered Syracuse.
Like him or not, Mohammed’s accomplishments are second to none. Started as an unknown orphan in the desert and in one way or another has influenced the world for the last 1450 years. He's litteraly effected every part of the world.
Wasn't Timoleon himself a Tyrant?
@@nirvanic3610 define tyant. He was a great man
@@00oa4 he was an oligarch himself
@@nirvanic3610 just bc someone is high born doesn't mean they aren't a good man. Plutarch imp shows timoleon was a good man
Cyrus the Great, Aurelian, Hatshepsut and Ozymandias deserve some recognition and respect.
Its hard to look much beyond Subutai, the Mongol Dog of War. He defeated every adversary from the Mongolian Steppe to Hungary, establishing the largest continuous empire in human history in the process.
@Erqĭn Məmbetdjan 🇰🇿 Q̆iat Қыят No he wasn't. He was a Uriyangqai Mongol who was born and died in Mongolia.
Dog of war?
@@shabenton1274 Nope, most definately a God 😁
@@johnniejay ahhh I always thought he was referred to as the dog of war, which ghengis referred him as.
@@shabenton1274 He was, it was a typo on my part in the OP 😂
Lee Kuan Yew isn't a name that comes up too often but he was very reliable, and very good, for a very long time.
Spot on
Lee is my answer as well. He is probably the greatest "philosopher king" the world has known.
certainly for a 20th century statesman and nation builder LKY is right up there with Ataturk and Deng Xiao Ping. But if the game is about all time great, he probably won't be ranked as high as Alexander, Genghis Khan or even a Caesar or Napoleon .
The guy that build singapur?
Great man
You can't talk about great leaders without Cyrus the Great- maybe we don't know too much about it, but his philosophy alone can put him on that stage.
Trajan or Aurelian
Amen, Cyrus is the greatest of them all, they should just read the history better and without any agenda.
I love Miley Cyrus. She is indeed great.
@@SG-jm7np not surprised.Beacuse usa doesn’t have any history and American are horrible in history.there some bridges in Persia 5 times older than United States
Cyrus (Zulqarnain) has been hailed as the greatest leader in Quraan
So glad he brought up the truth about Alexander, it's so seldom talked about but what his father built might have been the single greatest officer corps of all time.
It's true tht Alexander owes ALOT to what his father built, but dan is too dismissive of how excellently Alexander used it. There are many examples of people squandering the gifts they received in life.
If Alexander wasnt as competent as he was, then he would have been killed or disposed of long before his death. The fact tht he not only used the army to its max potential, but tht he had the drive and ambition to go as far as he did starting at only 20 years old, makes him great.
@@weefy117 He was assassinated at a pretty young age so apparently he wasn't very competent at ruling.
That’s impossible to answer. It’s like asking “who was the greatest genius?” No two individuals face exactly the same circumstances, history informs us, and even technology has a role. Terrible individuals can be great leaders…
Incorrect, the answer is simple... Alexander the Great.
@@eyeofhorus1301 Incorrect. Impossible to answer. Like I said. Period.
@@airforcex9412 This is a good answer I think
Like him or not, Mohammed’s accomplishments are second to none. Started as an unknown orphan in the desert and in one way or another has influenced the world for the last 1450 years. He's litteraly effected every part of the world.
That an the fact that the only leaders we kno about are the ones recorded who tf rly knos what happened in the old days there’s prolly whole societies an civilizations wit great leaders we kno nun about
Ghengis khan and the making of the modern world was an incredible book and made me a fan of his persona. Feels like he is a level above all the incredible leaders and conquerors.
Let’s compare history Iranic vs Mongolic I’m about to compare possibly the 2 best military commander , ruler and conqueror in all history Cyrus the Great and Genghis Khan Cyrus the Great turn the vassal Achaemenid kingdom of the Median Empire to the most powerful and largest Empire the world had yet seen he never lost any battle or war Cyrus the Great alone conquered more land than any Empire before him not ruler or commanders but EMPIRES for example Cyrus the Great conquered more and created more powerful empire all by himself than all kings of Neo-Babylonian Empire combined or all kings of Akkadian Empire combined or any other Empire before him and many after him that is just crazy also he was the founder of the fist hyperpower Empire in history and the first ruler to rule hyperpower Empire and according to many historians he was also the first ruler to rule the first superpower Empire in history Cyrus the Great conquered the most powerful kingdoms and Empires of is time he conquered most of them he also conquered the 3 most powerful Empire of is time Genghis Khan start with nothing but created one of the largest Empire in history definitely the largest in is time he conquered many kingdoms and Empire for example Jin dynasty, Qara Khitai and others he did lost some battle like Battle of Dalan Balzhat he had great military commanders like Subutai, Jebe and Muqali so who was better clearly Cyrus the Great is the winner just give one military commander as great as Subutai to Cyrus the Great you see the difference between them and also Cyrus the Great never lost he control more population he almost control 2 out 3 of known world in is time way more than Genghis Khan both conquered many states both conquered more than 5 states but Cyrus the Great Empire was solo hyperpower Empire of is time he won war against Arabs without no war and is son use the Arabs to conquered Egypt there was really no need for Cyrus to fight Arabs they knew better not to mess with Cyrus
Well we see you like women's rights
Your comment made me buy the ebook yesterday (I was already aware of it). I'm already at 30%, it's very interesting. So thanks!
Like him or not, Mohammed’s accomplishments are second to none. Started as an unknown orphan in the desert and in one way or another has influenced the world for the last 1450 years. He's litteraly effected every part of the world.
@@RUSure-jm9rp affected
Alexander simply was the best. His courage, his ingenuity, tenacity have been unmatched since. After 10 years of straight marching his men mutinied and he preformed a speech so moving his men were brought to tears and repented for disobedience. That doesn't happen for a man who hasn't sacrificed as much as his soldiers, Alexander was covered in scars but none on his back, on occasion he was even the first over the battlements. He was one of the smartest men of his time. If you know quite a bit of alexdrian history it's hard not to view him as almost demigodish due to how far past he was from his competition. Sure he was born and molded perfectly to do it, but that doesn't take away the fact that he did it.
I consider him more of a Great conqueror than a leader.
He's absolutely a legendary field commander, and a very charismatic king. But part of being a great leader is forging a stable realm and line of succession.
The disintegration of Alexander's empire is one of the most famous conflagrations in history. Hell, his famous last words to his followers that the Empire should go to "the strongest" could even be seen as throwing a lit match on top lol
Definitely ghengis khan man’s entire life was spent gaining his power conquering was easy as hell for him and that’s insane for the fact that he was outnumbered in most battles he would win with military genius he never lost a battle either unless u count against his brother man’s would literally take civilizations and erase them from history his famous faint retreat and his flanks man’s led a 300 mile flank around a desert his enemies thought impossible
He never accomplished his goal … And he spent the last part of his life as a severely-depressed man and gave up his goofy ambition … And it literally only took one simple question from a Sage to ruin Alexander’s whole life 😂 Alexander is an idiot, not to be revered or worshipped as you seem to.
@@GourSmith it’s not the man but the philosophy in the story of it that needs to be revered. Man will conquer to whole world and still fail to conquer himself.
To go with Dan's theory, Muhammed is the greatest. He came from literally nothing to not only be the founder of one of the world's great religions, but was also a secular ruler who laid the groundwork of an empire that stretched from spain to India. There really isn't any example of anybody even remotely close to that. It would be like if Jesus had become Roman Emperor. There is really no comparison.
I’m not sure I’d agree with your assessment that the Muslim empire was a single thing. The Abbasids and Mamluks were vastly different, and at no point did the same caliphate stretch from Morocco to India.
@@trtvitor1385 The Umayyad caliphate did stretch from Spain to Pakistan, until the Abbasid revolution in 750.
@@NikeonaBike My mistake for some reason I though the eastern border stopped at the extent of the Rashidun caliphate in 661.
Shocked Dan and lex didn’t think of that, it’s like their definition couldn’t have been more befitting to anyone but the prophet may peace and blessings be upon him. Don’t know what you mean by secular though, there was no division between “church” and state it was very much a Theocracy if I’m not mistaken
@@UnknownSend3r Yes, there was no division between secular and religious in the early caliphate, but that is relatively rare on a global scale, especially for large empires which makes it more noteworthy.
What about Pericles?? The guy established a democracy, expanded the athenian empire and highly developed arts & architecture. He accomplished 30 years of civilization flourishment
Extremely underrated & educated pick! Well done👏🏽
or perhaps his nephew alcibades
@@davyroger3773 he was a chad
overrated
I swear i could listen to Carlin speak for hours. Oh wait, i lisyen to his podcasts so i already do. He is the only person i can sit through a 5 hour podcast episode of consistently
Cyrus the Great the best and the most complete leader in history Cyrus the Great one of the best military commander and conqueror in history but he was also the most complete leader in history he had no weaknesses let’s me tell you why there are many ways to identify a great leader. Some leaders were great conquerers and military geniuses, able to establish Empires against all odds some leaders have built systems of government that truly stood the test of time some leaders have overseen times of great change in culture and ideology, perhaps even being drivers of this change themselves Cyrus the Great was all of these Cyrus the Great was military commander and conqueror like Alexander the Great but built systems of government and was ruler like Augustus
Khalid Bin Walid took Cyrpus's nation in one swoop whilst simultaneously taking on the Romans. No doubt it is him first, then Cyrus second
@@zccau2316 Khalid was one even king he was just general
@@zccau2316 There is between 350 to 400 Empires in all history and the first hyperpower Empire and also possibly the first superpower Empire in history is the Achaemenid Empire founded by the greatest ruler ever Cyrus the Great IRANIC PRIDE and by the way according to Arabs Cyrus the Great is better than Khalid ua-cam.com/video/IH7HA9zfZFI/v-deo.html Cyrus number 2 Khalid number 3 both are top 5 in my opinion but Cyrus is the greatest not 2 but number 1
@@zccau2316 Cyrus the Great one of best military commanders and ruler in history Cyrus the Great was brilliant military strategist, Cyrus vanquished the king of the Medes, then integrated all the Iranian tribes, whose skill at fighting on horseback gave his army great mobility. His triumph over Lydia, in Asia Minor near the Aegean Sea, filled his treasury with that country’s tremendous wealth. In principles of military strategy emerged at least as far back as 500 BC in the works of Sun Tzu and Chanakya. The campaigns of Alexander the Great, Chandragupta Maurya, Hannibal, Qin Shi Huang, Julius Cæsar, Zhuge Liang, Khalid ibn al-Walid and, in particular Cyrus the Great IN PARTICULAR CYRUS THE GREAT
Like him or not, Mohammed’s accomplishments are second to none. Started as an unknown orphan in the desert and in one way or another has influenced the world for the last 1450 years. He's litteraly effected every part of the world.
What is clearly missed here is that it is very difficult to get up in the morning to take over most of the known world when you are waking up in silk sheets. Whereas if you are waking up in the gutter, the motivation is very real and literal. These guys have a very American centric way of looking at what a great leader is.
It’s easy when you’re mother injects you with the proto-manifest-destiny serum from birth.
Exactly. From an Indian perspective, this is entirely western
Excellent point. Another take on this: He started off a millionaire at age 20 (third base to this clown) and ended up a trillionaire owner of the world about a dozen years later. Way less impressive than somebody who started from nothing and needed a lifetime to conquer a tiny fraction of what Alexander conquered in record time. These people are not thinking clearly. Alexander is like climbing mount everest and finding a 12 year old boy atop the mountain ahead of you. When did he find the time to train and perfect his skills? Start at age 20 and conquer the world by age 32.
@@AngeloDallas-p5xalexander didnt conquer the world. He had way less territory than gengis khans mongols, or the roman empire, or even russia. Secondly Alexander did not vuild upon what he conquered and his ebtire lands of gains broke apart after his supposed assassination.
Augustus has always been a personal favourite of mine, not quite self made due to being adopted by Julius at the last minute but while that gave him a step up and some legitimacy in the political world he could have easily failed and squandered that within a few months
I’ve also heard it said that the guy who originally makes the money wouldn’t be considered fit to attend dinner by his descendants.
The greatest story arc in the modern era is that of Napoleon. It's hard to compare with the ancient world when so much is uncertain.
Like him or not, Mohammed’s accomplishments are second to none. Started as an unknown orphan in the desert and in one way or another has influenced the world for the last 1450 years. He's litteraly effected every part of the world.
@@RUSure-jm9rp he also fucked a kid, that wasn't great
From a Military perspective, Khaled Ibn Al Walid deserves a mention.
"The time molded the man; The man molded his time"
A great leader makes leaders of those around them. Empowering without embittering, empowering through loving vitality.
Fits the description of Muhammad and his companions. A group of Arabs from a small town in the middle of the desert had such a huge impact on the world. All led by one man who inspired the people around him to become the best version of themselves.
@@Bravedom if you have read the quran, you would know what kind of a grifter, schemer, liar and a overall bad person he was..but yeah sure..i can give you that he was a great warlord , very good at conquering his foes.
@@shikharacc1543 very odd, have you read the Quran cover to cover?
@@Bravedom yes, just finished reading it some days ago. I'm currently reading sahih-al-bukhari. Though I doubt I'm gonna read anything new that will change my opinion of him.
@@shikharacc1543 I’m surprised to hear you feel the same way after reading it. But then again this book does reflect what’s in the reader’s heart.
Carlin’s point at 6:35 perfectly explains why humans with psychopathic traits always rise to power
Napoleon Bonaparte is the greatest Rag to Richest story in human history, a boy born in an empoverished backwater island who became Emperor of most of Europe and was known as “ The Master of Europe”
Ghengis Khan, more so. That dude and his family were literally left on the plains to die when he was a child. From that to the Khan of the sea of grass is remarkable.
@@ulrichwentzel6327 you may say you like Gengis Kahn more but can’t say he’s story if more impressive , Bonaparte’s legacy and impact on the world was greater, the Civil code based for most constitutions toda, he’s responsible for the decline of both Spain and Portugal in the americas and the independence of their colonies , the German unification of 1871 began with Napoleon when united most of Germany into a single state, the Italian unification was inspired by the time he was President of Italy , Polish independence they have “Bonaparte “ in their national anthem , Egyptology or what we know today as Archeology began with Napoleon’s 1798 invasion of Egypt , do you know how we number houses today , even number on one side , uneven in the other , yes that was Napoleons idea .
@@ernestoA.1999Genghis’s impact was bigger. He was the catalyst to the Mongolian empire that lasted for centuries.
@@AstroSully Gengis was not a General , he was not a strategist nor was he ever in charge of Military operations , like Augustus he had others to do it for him because he was simply not a General. Khans army never faced a professional disciplined army like that of The French or Germans , they simply conquered people who have always been conquered by someone
@@ernestoA.1999 Yeah the question was leader. Who united the all the Mongol tribes? Genghis? Who was the founder of the Mongol Empire? Genghis. It all stemmed from his influence and decisions. The Mongols never faced disciplined armies? They literally defeated the most powerful empires in the world in that time? What are you on about? 😂
Behind your eloquent words is the phrase "has to be a killer."
Salidin is one often overlooked in history.
He's honestly overrated if you really look at what he did and what happened after he died. If Baldwin lived, Saladin wouldn't have taken Jerusalem, and he wasn't able to defeat Richard the lion heart, who keep in mind had an army thousands of miles from his home in the ancient days, so his logistics were probably just a nightmare,and he was outnumbered, yet he still had a favorable peace with Saladin. He was a great leader, but Arabs often act like he was God walking on Earth.
Cyrus the great, great conqueror, military genius, charismatic leader, created the biggest empire the world had seen and unlike most actually had a moral compass. Litterly what else would you want in a leader
He's definitely underrated.
Didnt he die from a battle to the scythians how is he a military genius?
@@ΣοφοκλήςΤόλε So what if he lost .. Napoleon lost too,Caeser lost too ,so did Hannibal ..it doesn't take away their military achievements
@@ΣοφοκλήςΤόλε Not according to Xenophon.
@@ΣοφοκλήςΤόλε that nonsense nothing but myth
Inheritance is one thing but turning it into something priceless that will live until the end of humanity, is something else.
Love listening to Carlin... both Dan and George.
chengis kahn stands out for me. He united the steppes and conquered more than anybody really.
Gengis Khan no doubt... he makes one of the most large empires and evolve people's lives with tech and create excelent rules to make all that on top of that he have to go from the scratch and even be a slave... all that in just one live.
Yes 100%
Absolute shite. Muhammad by a mile , he still has 1.9 billion followers. He’s still leading them now. The US Supreme Court considers him to be the greatest law maker in history. Started from nothing. Inherited nothing. Unbelievable how he won all his battles and bullshited about himself being a prophet of God. Absolute genius motivator, story teller, warlord, lawmaker…..
But he kept slaves, raped a lot, and looted a-lot, great war leader, not so great leader in all aspects of life
Right
Ghengis Khan conquered weak nations so it isn't anything impressive
I was contemplating whether a religious leader could be one of the 'greatest leaders in history.' Maybe at one time. But now most religions have become so factionated it seems no leader can even bring their own religion together, much less the rest of the population.
Octavian "Augustus" Caesar
This is my choice too. Great leader not just in terms of short term achievements (winning the civil war, defeating Marc Anthony and rejuvinating the state on sustainable ground) but he rules for decades over a golden period. He managed to transcend the factionalism that had plagued the previous 100 years and brought respect back to the various institutions that had been corrupted by a number of people in the previous period. He was smart and had integrity but could be ruthless. He also tried to bring back to Rome a sense of moral compass. His biggest flaw was perhaps his inability to groom a suitable successor.
Augustus inherited Julius Caesars wealth and Legions ! So is not self made !
Trajan and Vespasian are self made Emperors and very good leaders.
Marcus Aurelius and Hadrian were great leaders too.
@@eduardtarniceriu102 yes indeed and of course that gave him a huge advantage. But he was clever enough to use the wealth properly and the name of caesar. He also won his position after ceasara death skillfully - he wasn’t just made the most powerful man automatically
@@cordovalark5295 yes marcus agrippa was a great man also. Military genius arguably. The battle of actium was a key naval victory. However isnt one of the key traits of a leader the ability to get the best from others and promote the right people? He entrusted agrippa with a lot and he delivered for him and rome.
Nah, he got his ass handed to him on many occasions, his buddy Agrippa on the other hand saved his ass on numerous occasions
6:10 probably the most insightful thing in the interview. I once knew a British history scholar who had a similar take on female leader. Women who make history are rarely well behaved. In the context of Elizabeth I, that certainly makes tremendous sense. Jordan Peterson actually has a fairly lengthy discussion on the topic in which he talks about agreeableness vs disagreeableness and how leaders, in order to be successful, must be disagreeable people. They have to be people willing to defy social norms. I reject the idea that Jesus or Gandhi didn't fit this description. Jesus very clearly defied Jewish social norms and teachings many times and in profound ways. It was this which allows us now to draw distinction between Christianity and Judaism. And Gandhi was similar. He was a communist and an avowed pacifist. Both of those things were in stark contrast to social norms, but which inspired him to defy British authority in a way that rallied people to his cause. Great people are risk takers who get lucky and have their risks pay off.
India's given the world "Emperor Asoka" and the greatest leader who has walked the earth because he showed humans how to achieve Happiness.ie. Prince Siddharth Gautama...also called.. The Buddha 🙏
your welcome 👍
Really good stuff. Love both their podcasts 👍
Vercingetorix has to be up on the list. He lost but somehow managed to amass that many tribal people
His career was so short lived. He lacked military experience. When Cesar encircled him at alesia he should have done what pompey did to neutralize Cesar at dyrrachium. and when vercingetorix had a chance to call back up it was not enough troops. He should of made sure another 100k came and half his men were non combatant
The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History - by Michael H. Hart
People interested in history may try this book.
@Jarrid Gable Isaac Newton has made a bigger impact on the world than Jesus ever did. Sure he’s more known but he didn’t really do anything. Because of Newton we’ve been able to progress century after century with technology and innovation. Half the world doesn’t even believe in Jesus and only 1/7 worship him. I’m sure more people have iPhones than believe in Jesus.
@@alejandrocastaneda292 It's actually more like 1/4. There are around 2 billion Christians & we are almost at 8 billion people. Not too mention that Christianity had a large effect on laws and philosophy through Europe, and then Europe's colonization spread that change throughout the world. It's hard to argue against almost of all Latin America being Catholics or the devout faith of protestants in America. So it did create a rather large ripple effect. Now there is also the interconnectedness of different world religions that stem from Abraham, also all the wars and conquering. Essentially Christianity influenced the systems of the West and the West pillaged and forced that system on a lot of the world, Isaac Newton worked within that system, in fact a lof of scientists were backed up by the church, from the Gregor Mendel (Father of Genetics) to Georges Lemaître (founder of Big Bang theory). Also fun fact, it wasn't science that walked away from Christianity, it was the church that became anti-science. All of these scientists did epic things, it doesn't take away one from the other, I'm just saying if you put the argument of "Is Christianity a net positive or negative" or "Did Jesus really live" or "Is Christianity just a modified form of paganism mixed with other old religions", and just look at the NET EFFECT on society, Christianity has a lot going for it. Sure most people don't think about Newton's laws on a daily basis or base their life and moral decisions on that, but like you said Netwon's laws have a compounding effect. They are a giant that a lot of other sciences stand on top off and are able to give us that inventions and Christianity is the same way it is just a bigger giant that legal systems and tradition and culture and philosophy has stood on top on off and being influenced by (and equally influenced Christianity as well) and created the rules for the systems and funding and institutions and disbursement of knowledge and classification of science. Newton's laws can exist without Christianity but in our reality, historically speaking, it is Christianity that has influenced the pulse of science in the West for most of the millennium. Anyway, it's really difficult to even compare them because what type of metrics do you even begin to compare them by?
@@alejandrocastaneda292 newton is a scientist who copied other scientists nothing special.
Napoleon; No heritage. No oratory.
In the most tumultuous period in human history.
Even in defeat, the sheer force of his genius and leadership remains immortal.
France was so developed nation during its time. Whereas The Mongols and nomadic people had almost nothing. Chinggis Khan built 1st modern army, religious tolerance to unite all kinds of people and to bring peace through power. He did it. He rose from nothing to the greatest during his period.
@@aslof1069 Genghis’s father, I believe was a leader of a tribe but was murdered when he was young.
When Ghenghis got older, he found the support of his father’s tribe. Both started from essentially nothing, but Napoleon’s legacy is greater imo, since his legal and military legacy is bigger in sheer numbers.
@@moonashraf2382 You don't compare it like that. Napoleon is not even greater than Chinggis Khan's warlord (Subedei). He will make Napoleon a kid.
You need to understand that during the 13th century the total population was lower than Napoleon's period. So the numbers are smaller.
Napoleon is an amateur compare to Chinggis Khan. As you heard Dan Carlin Chinggis Khan is the greatest. His military was the most dominant one during his period and he is known as the father of the nation as he found the language for his people so they can communicate more accurately and through letters. United various people to its empire including Chinese, Persian, Slavic, Korean, Turkic, Mongol, and small nomadic tribes. Napoleon didn't unite such a diverse population. He just made enemies and after his death, his reign and empire ended. Chinggis Khan's empire existed for a few generations. Alexander the great's empire fractionated when he died too. And much more. You surely must read more books and you must be aware of your BIASes.
@@moonashraf2382 He didnt just get any support from his father's tribe. He defeated their enemies and proved that he is worthy to lead. Again read more BOOKS!
@@aslof1069 Genghis had support of his father’s blood brother and his friend Jamukha, when he first waged war.
He did unite many different sects but his empire proved that conquest does not last.
His reforms are non-existent except for the Silk Roads, which China is expanding on now with their Belt and Road Initiative.
Meanwhile, Napoleon’s Code is the legal basis for over 100+ counties today and introduced modern concepts such as bureaucratic meritocracy, secular education, etc.
Napoleon’s empire collapsed during his lifetime but so did Caesar’s, Alexander’s, and even Genghis’s was fragmented in 90 years. The length of an empire is important but none have been as influential and consistent as the Romans, simply because the world has increased in sheer size.
As for your Subutai argument, he was the chief architect of Genghis’s most important victories and deserves respect as one of history’s great commanders. I consider him Napoleon’s equal because the latter also dominated his era. Napoleon lost due to size, not skill.
For me, Napoleon’s genius is in his return from Elba. He managed to re-conquer France without firing a single shot. And there lies the difference between Genghis Khan and Napoleon.
About 200 years ago Thomas Carlyle, political philosopher and unbiased historian of England, was courageous enough to frankly admit the fault of Europe for its contemptuous attitude towards the Prophet, in his famous book On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History.
He had not only dispelled the misgivings and medieval prejudices of his people about the Prophet of Islam, but highlighted his dignified person as a hero Prophet.
Some of the amazing aspects of the Prophet’s life addressed by Carlyle are worthy of consideration. He begins by mentioning the state of the Arabs:
“They were wild men, bursting ever and anon into quarrel, into all kinds of fierce sincerity; without right worth and manhood, no man could have commanded them.
They called him Prophet, you say?
Why, he stood there face to face with them; bare, not enshrined in any mystery; visibly clouting his own cloak, cobbling his own shoes; fighting, counseling, ordering in the midst of them: they must have seen what kind of a man he was. Let him be called what you like!
No emperor with his tiaras was obeyed as this man in a cloak of his own clouting.
During three-and-twenty years of rough actual trial. I find something of a veritable Hero necessary for that, of itself…”
Carlyle further says:
“Europe has begun now to sense the wisdom of Muhammad and has developed a passion for his religion.
It will also come to exonerate Islamic doctrine from all the false accusations laid at its door by Europeans in the Middle Ages.
The religion of Muhammad will be the system upon which peace and contentment will be founded.
From his Philosophy, Europe will derive the solution to perplexities, problems and complexities . . .
Many of my fellow countrymen and other Europeans venerate the teachings of Islam.
Hence I confirm my prophecy by saying that the first stirrings of the age of European Islam are near, this is inevitable.
Yes, the world today is in dire need of a man like Muhammad to solve its complex problems.
Muhammad was abstemious and simple in his abode, his food and his drink and his clothing and in the rest of his life and conditions.
His food consisted mainly of bread with dates and water.
He often mended his own clothes. What could be more honorable than this?
Hail Muhammad the Prophet of rough clothing and food, who strived, was active during the day and awake during the night and persistent in promoting the religion of Allah.
He was not one to covet that which lesser men covet such as rank, empire and power.
He is in truth the Prophet of the sublime morals.
A silent great soul - one that who could not but be earnest, he was to kindle the world as the Maker of the world had ordered so.
The lies which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man [Muhammad] are disgraceful to us only.”
¹(On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History. Thomas Carlyle)
The choice is clearly Mohammad. Selfmade man, military leader, spiritual leader, political leader. Conquered Arabia in his lifetime, and his forces conquered two major empires within a few decades after him, and he is still relevant 1400 years later. Objectively speaking, the most effective leader in history.
Btw, the above isnt a statement for or against Islam as a religion, merely on Muhammad as a historical figure.
Jesus 2000+ years old. Conquered the world with peace. His followers did not.
Uniting the Arabs on anything, let alone in destroying empires and forging an Arab golden age, requires leadership skills that are 10 times greater than anyone else. The best leader in history by far.
@@pancake6685 Jesus’s message was for the lost sheep of Israel. According to Christians he was killed before his message went world wide. And even then it was a distorted and warped Pagan version of his religion.
As for peacefully. 🤣 Christianity is the most violent religion in history. Should be the last topic you bring up.
The cancer he brought upon mankind is still persistent after 1400 years.
King Alfred the great for me.
CYRUS THE GREAT, THE KING OF KINGS AND FIRST GREAT, ACHAEMENID KING
Alexander tried to do was Cyrus the Great did generations before him
He also was fair and highly enlightened. A just ruler not just a conqueror.
@@rahamohebbi Victor scribet historiam.
Yes Miley Cyrus is the best
@@rahamohebbi maybe you guys need to learn to not be curb stomped by the west everytime we come over
Bosworth Smith, a renowned British writer and author, writes about the sublime status of the Noble Prophet Muhammad:
“It was Muhammad, who was head of the State as well as of the Church,
He was Caesar and Pope in one: but he was a Pope without the Pope’s pretensions, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar.
Without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without the palace, without a fixed revenue,
If ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by a right Divine, it was Muhammad, for he had all the power without its instruments and without its supports.”1
He cared not for the dressings of power. The simplicity of his private life was in keeping with his public life.
In Mohammedanism everything is different here. Instead of the shadowy and the mysterious, we have history…. We know of the external history of Muhammad…. while for his internal history after his mission had been proclaimed, we have a book (Quran) absolutely unique in its origin, in its preservation…. on the Substantial authority of which no one has ever been able to cast a serious doubt.”
He further writes:
“By a fortune absolutely unique in history, Mohammed is a threefold founder of a nation, of an empire, and of a religion.
Illiterate himself, scarcely able to read or write, he was yet the author* of a book which is a poem, a code of laws, a Book of Common Prayer, and a Bible in one, and is reverenced to this day by a sixth of the whole human race as a miracle of purity of style, of wisdom, and of truth. It was the one miracle claimed by Mohammed - his ‘standing miracle’ he called it; and a miracle indeed it is.”2
*Muhammad is not the author of Qur’an, rather it is a revelation from Allah on His Greatest and Final Messenger Muhammad through Angel Jibrael.
¹(R. Bosworth Smith: Mohammed and Mohammedanism-Lectures at the Royal Institute of Great Britain, London 1874, p. 235
²(R. Bosworth Smith: Mohammed and Mohammedanism-Lectures at the Royal Institute of Great Britain, London 1874, p. 237)
What's staggering about most of these military guys is how much they did in such a small time frame mostly quite young as well
Like him or not, Mohammed’s accomplishments are second to none. Started as an unknown orphan in the desert and in one way or another has influenced the world for the last 1450 years. He's litteraly effected every part of the world.
@@RUSure-jm9rpJesus hasn’t?
@@Pondy33 You are correct as great as he was "Jesus hasn't"
@@RUSure-jm9rp yeah I don’t think you’re correct on that at all
Jesus didn’t have to slaughter hundreds of thousands for his message to reach all corners of the globe 🙏🏽
You don’t have to be a follower of the great man, The Prophet Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him to know that establish that he was the greatest leader of the sons of Adam. If you look at what was achieved on a religious, political and military level in the 23 years of his Prophethood, it’s truly outstanding. Not to mention his continued legacy 1400 years later with that none of the current leaders noted in the comments or in the podcast have even a small share of. That is not to knock the feats that they achieved in being good leaders. Some of you may see this as some sort of preacher message, but I would recommend doing your own research into his history and biography. Even orientalists historians have ranked him as the most influential person of history.
You’re totally right.
200%
In my opinion it’s Alexander. He didn’t conquer by fear, he earned the love of the people that followed him being at the front lines of every battle. After he died of disease the army he built disbanded almost immediately.
Alexander the Queer?
He definitely conquered by fear, TF? This weird admiration for Alexander like he wasn't a megalomaniac with a drinking problem...
He literally committed genocide against the Greeks that served the persian army (which outnumbered the greeks in his army).
@@hez859Many great people were like this so him being one doesn't discredit his achievements
Jesus was pretty influential
Michael Jordan easily, even played with the flu. Led his team to 6 Championships. What a leader.
Nice.
Quit on his team twice. Give me Bill Russel, 11 in 13.
@@suf1an658in an 8 team league? Cmon now
Jesus
You need to broaden your world view
I disagree, history is replete of leaders/monarchs/generals who when “handed” an army or empire completely squandered it. Alexander may have been given a great army but he also took it to the heights no man could never ever go!
@@PatrickPierceBateman you mad bro?
@@PatrickPierceBateman you really like the word fruitcake don’t you. Hahaha. Such a middle school put down haha.
@@PatrickPierceBateman hahaha you’re a funny dude. You make all these harsh statements using grandma lingo haha.
No man could have achieved what Alexander achieved? What about the founder of the Achaemenid empire himself Cyrus the great?
Agree but in last 100 years. I just had a conversation with a guy thats a history buff, but queen elizabeth in England led from ww2 to today. Got to give her props.
The fact that Hannibal didn't get support from Carthage at the very point he needed it the most is astounding. The decisions of a dozen or so politicians literally changed history forever. Hannibal & Carthage could EASILLY of defeated Rome, yet the failure to back Hannibal due to 'politics' brought about their very destruction & we have the history we have. It's an insanity!
History may soon repeat
Grounds Keeper Willie , you drunk?!... 🙄
You can blame Hanno II's selfishness for that, he was jealous of the power Hannibal was gaining through his conquest and also was too short-sighted and worried about his money making silver mines in Iberia. His was the biggest opposition to Hannibal in the Carthaginian court, and damned his whole nation because of it, hope he rots in hell.
I doubt that. The Roman War Machine was relentless. Hannibal although a great general could not compete with the Roman army that learnt from every engagement and grew stronger
@@LiamtheAspie Thats completely false. The only thing Romans learned from fighting Hannibal was to avoid fighting him at all cost, even outnumbering him 2 to 1 they couldnt best him, which is why they implemented the "Fabian strategy"
Hannibal spent 15 years in Roman territory, with the same army he brought over the alps and was sent ZERO reinforcements the whole time.
Great conversation 👌🏼
I love the studio set; authentic, relateable
@@rhettmelton lol
I'd say Aurelian, literally the guy who stopped the collapse of the Roman Empire.
Aurelian is a great conqueror, we're talking of great rulers.
Obviously Muhammad. Greatest law maker in history and still leads 1.9 billion people.
Alexander had to fight wars in greece tp secure his throne. To say he was given everything is bologna
Philip built that army; not Alexander. Caesar was a better leader.
@@spookrockcity and who build Caesars army?
August Kubizek wrote an odd chapter in his fascinating book, The Young Hitler I Knew, and Hitler later affirmed it to be true. After seeing the opera Rienzi by Wagner, 16-year-old Hitler was so moved that he silently guided his friend to the highest peak in Linz and declared that he would receive a mandate from the German people to lead them. When Kubizek reminded him of the story, Hitler said, "Yes, in that hour it all began."
It's obviously Prophet Muhammad. Whether you like or hate Islam you cannot deny his achievements. He ticks all boxes. Way beyond just military success like most of the names being mentioned.
Won battles against all odds. Tick
Led his people to a new way of life, tick
Left behind a book that is the most read till this day, tick
Still followed by a quarter of the world today, tick
Nobody can match his all around achievements.
Not to mention that he came from no royal bloodline and born in a desert sandwiched in between two large empires, the Romans and the Persians, only for his own followers to defeat both in battles shortly after his passing PBUH.
@@theflash87650 moral judgements by atheists are always so laughable. Even better when they’re strawmen 😂
Firstly, I always love listening to Dan's opinion on any subject, and secondly, Lex, would you please lineup your hairline in the front, my OCD can't take it lol.
It has to be Khalid Ibn Waleed. Crushed the Persians and Byzantine empires in succession.
Has to be the man who made Khalid possible. Muhammad.
Maybe read a little more. Then you’d learn that the Persians and byzantines had just spent a couple centuries beating the crap out of each other. They were spent. One of the biggest and simplest explanations for the quick rise of Islam was the lack of any organized resistance from the largest empires that had existed in the region and the time period. You’re welcome.
@@rogerthat2479 cope
@@rogerthat2479 I am fully aware of the battles beforehand. But lets not take away from the fact that him and the army of Muslims defeated them back to back or one directly after another. They were still fully equipped armies and it's not like both empires were on the brink of total collapse. Also the way you are making it out as if the Byzantines and Persians were just militias at this point and were totally useless which is untrue. You convieniently also forgot to mention that the Muslim armies were vastly out numbered 3:1 in nearly all of these battles and that the Muslim armies as Khalid as commander had no experience in this type of warfare and also had inferior weapon's. No man or no army has ever crushed two empires back to back. Khalid ibn Waleed is the greatest military general ever. The west will never give him that accolade because him and his armies were Muslims. But you know what he does not need it. Khalid ibn Waleed number 1.
@@mustafaaziz6731 oh yeah 💯 right
Love the nuances mentioned, and how delving deep into history provides great context to the simple narratives that at times get passed down!
Here’s a good read
In Extremis Leadership: Leading As If Your Life Depended On It
Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the 19th century ruler of the Sikh Empire in India, has beaten competition from around the world to be named the "Greatest Leader of All Time" in a poll conducted by ‘BBC World Histories Magazine'.
Over 5,000 readers voted in the poll. Polling more than 38 per cent of the vote, Singh was praised for creating a new tolerant empire
Isn't it extreme ownership?
Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Augustus.
This is a very interesting question. I think you have to look at it with different perspectives. perspective of people who conquered and people who got conquered.
Alexander in Persian books never has been called "the great". it's always Alexander or Alexander the Macedonian. because in their perspective he was the guy who burned down Persepolis.
for me when I look at history, I always find it interesting when their enemies mention leaders or kings with respect.
for example I always see that with Cyrus in different sources. a very unknown figure compare to Alexander.
I think Alexander achievements are great. but if you wanna pick your guy you have to look at everything.
Like him or not, Mohammed’s accomplishments are second to none. Started as an unknown orphan in the desert and in one way or another has influenced the world for the last 1450 years. He's litteraly effected every part of the world.
Muhammad was the greatest leader in history. He was a preacher, an orator, a millitary general, a statesman, and a spiritual leader who still inspires billions of followers to this day.
Nice to see he makes the distinction between being a good man and being good at being a man. Jack Donavon covers this well.
Only a perspective based in Western history . There have been so many outside of Europe
Underrated comment
@@bestvidsdottk What is underrated about it
@@shamik0608 Written history and specifically war history even more so is quite short as of yet and most of it has been written by Europeans. So it kinda makes sense at this point in time.
@@lexle6203 There has been written history for a very long time , the colonial powers choose to hide it when they colonized it. The written works even when Alexander was trying to conquer India was available from indian perspective. What we know of world history is Anglo Saxon and european version.
@@shamik0608 Sure they did. You have been listening too much to Noam Chomsky.
He started at third base , then won all games
Well put
@@halneufmille he never lost a battle
The Hawk Tuah girl united a country.
Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaj & An-Nasir Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub both were great warriors and compassionate kings who not only defeated their enemies but also won their hearts!
Oh yes very true!
Alfred the Great for me
He embodies the two functions of Kingship
1. Defence
2. Justice
As well as being a great unifier and promoter of education. You don’t have to be a conquerer to be a great king.
I agree he's up there
Greater than Alexander. His daddy didn't leave him the world's mightiest army. He had to save his dying Kingdom from the Vikings while preserving a legacy of the Anglo Saxons.
Shaka Zulu took a knife to a gunfight
No he didn’t. He united tribes and was assassinated by his brother. He let Europeans trade and settle on his land.. lol.
So he surprised a small amount of soldiers with vast numbers... yeah, real impressive... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rorke's_Drift
@@blackerpanther3329 Shaka was dead before Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift. He did build the army and form the tactics that made the Zulus a force to be reckoned with though.
@@kharilane1340 they accomplished nothing so I don’t know how you can say they were a “force to be reckoned with”.
@@blackerpanther3329 While they lost the war eventually, they did give the British Empire a defeat they did not forget. They even made a movie about it. That is not accomplishing nothing.
Napoleon would be a great example. Although he came from the local nobility of Corsica, he joined the army as an artilery man, he slowly ascended in the hierarchy. After doing so, he created a meritocratic system in the French burocracy so that people with talent from any background could have the social ascension he experimented
I keep waiting for Dan to do a 5 part series on Napoleon
Watch the Napoleonic wars from the channel oversimplified
Charles XII is one of my favorites. Not talked about enough IMO. Didn’t come from nothing but what a resume.
Gustav II Adolf (Gustavus Adolphus) is also a more than worthy mention!
Alexander for me. He was so young, a tactical genius, his men literally followed him to the ends of the world!
@@PatrickPierceBateman no leader ever did.
And then they mutinied in India
@@TheAcolossus no, Alexander remained king.
Apart from religion part bit If you're counting the greatest leader because he has a tremendous power so I'll go with prophet Muhammad,if you're counting the battles he wins , I'll go with prophet Muhammad,if you're counting the greatest leader by educating his people are good manners and justice I'll always go with prophet Muhammad and it's obvious nowadays how his empire ( Prophet Muhammad) is in each and every part of the world if he's who would be ?
This is awesome stuff Lex. Thank you.