I made a TIER LIST of THE GREATS in History
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 жов 2024
- Great. Today we're creating a grating debate where we rate the great's. It's known that some greats are great, some are great greats, some are greater than the great greats making them the greatest great of all the greats, join me today as we slate underrated greats and make some people irate!
Become a CHANNEL MEMBER! - / @thesocialstreamers
Live on Twitch! - / thesocialstreamers
Join our Discord! - / discord
Help us out on Patreon: / thesocialstreamers
Follow us on Twitter: / thesstreamers
Shoutout to our Patreon Supporters!
Emperor Tier:
Lewis Wright
Matvei Novikov
King Tier:
Blenderman
Crilly
Flyerton99
Ghostwolf567
Henriki2305
iTzHuzzah
JdoW52
Sjalmi
Orginal
Redguard76
ShadowSinger
Duke Tier:
abayer
Aeryka
Arthur Pendragon
ColeZawesome
Cutaline
HoratioNullbuilt
Of The Dragon
Scorpius
Stormblind
Stuart Watson
Thomas Carmichael
Trever101
Zachary Older
Count Tier:
AssBreath
Bobby Bottle Service
Brandon Smith-Darby
danjamrod
Marius
Michael Scott
MisterODark
PrimitiveMorris
Red Star
Søren Ryge
ThatOneGuy
Baron Tier:
choppyrice
Garking
Hachi
Hunkulous
Morgan Jones
Prof_Toad
Professor toad
Tobias Lauge Borgstrøm
Trevor
I made a TIER LIST of THE GREATS in History
Cryrus the Great should indeed have his own catagory, even Alexander was upset seeing Cryus' tomb vandalized becase he too looked up to Cyrus.
And I agree with Laith on why he isn’t more well know . Archeology didn’t come into a definitive organization until after the fall of ‘persia’ to the muslim revolution. If there is one thing the middle eastern muslim religions are good at stifling, its any sort of national heritige
@@goldenhate6649 we shouldn't tell him about the Samanids
@@goldenhate6649 of course you somehow twist this into Islamophobia
@@pprot1337 of course someone gets salty at someone finally not jerking off muslims
@@goldenhate6649 aparently, more than a 1000 years of muslim history in Iran can't be a part of national heritage
I'm not the first one to point this out but Bolesław "The Bold" is not really referred in Poland as "The Great", but we do have a Monarch we call as such - Casimir The Great. He was the last ruler of the Piast dynasty and we literraly spend like Two weeks of history lessons talking about his exploits. His father United polish Kingdom after 200 Years of poland being divided into small duchies and it was his job to put this Kingdom Together. During his reign he Built like 200+ castles replacing wooden structures that were used previously, Built the first polish University in Cracov and is mostly responsible for the way this City looks today, he entered an aliance with the Lithuanians to prevent Invasions from the teutons, he expanded the Kingdom into Galicia volhynia, creator a standard currency, mpdernized the country to match western powers and so on. His biggest error was not having a legitimate heir despite having multiple Children and so he Passed the polish crown to Lois the first of hungary ( his Cousin if I'm not mistaken)
Louis was also The Great funnily enough.
I completely agree with you, but it should be noted that Kazimierz inherited eastern Galicia, not conquered it
This Casimir guy from poland conquered all the way to Spain? 😮 certified "the great" moment
Bolesław is called "The Great", but it's far less popular than "The Bold". In fact, he was started to be called "The Bold" during the reign of his son, Mieszko II. If I remember correctly, they started calling him "The Great" in the 12th or 13th century
Bolesław might not really be called Great but being a Pole and having studied Polish-centered history in school and myself for a long ass time I think he is realistically far more deserving of the title than Kazimierz. So this unintentional mistake is a plus for me
Even the Greeks saw Cyrus as basically a model monarch. Xenophon wrote an entire biography of the man.
The same greeks that for the most part opposed monarchy? Some Greeks surely, but not all of them. Stop treating ancient greece as 1 organism, they were too diversed for that
Majority of Greeks were against Monarchy! 😂
And so what if they wrote about him? The Greeks wrote about everything! 🤷🏻♂️
You don’t need to try to use our History to prop up your guy…👍🏻
Historical fact: Alexander the Great was never called "the Great" by Greeks. To them he was Alexander, son of Phillip, or just Alexander. The epithet "the Great" was given to him by the first time in 200 BC aprox by the Romans, to compare him with Antiochus the Great (the only Great at that point and truly a Great "Great" for this tier list) so the Roman people could have a more or less accurate idea of who Alexander was, like a great Macedonian king of the East.
Edit: Also I see Mithridates Eupator, who was never called the Great until he was dead and by the Romans again if I'm not wrong.
he seemed to have alot of differnt titles, i think the english simply called him Alexander The Horseman
Alexander son of Philip and the hellenes, minus sparta
I think it's even more gigachad to just be known by your name. No need for an epithet, you're just Alexander and everyone in the known world knows who you are.
Alexander The Hamilton
Alexander son of phillip is typical greek naming form
You should post more about history i like these kinds of videos most or when you use facts in your vids
No hate to Laith as I understand that this video is just a relaxed tier list where he can share his thoughts. But to all who share your opinion, there are much better sources out there to learn historical facts from, even in such relaxed form. It's better not to perpetuate misleading and frankly inaccurate informations.
Toms history content is missed 😭
If Alexander had lived long enough we would most likely have seen his administrative capabilities, some examples were the cities of Alexandria he created and how he envisioned them, the adoption of the Persian administration and a lot more that we overlook because of his insane military achievements.
From what we know of Alexander's kingship as well as regency he was a highly competent statesman. He kept Macedon well protected and wealthy while Philip was away during the regency and we have several anecdotes from Arrian and Plutarch which regard his kingly abilities as being quite good - reforming agriculture, building dams and making vast preparations to consolidate his rule while generally improving life in his empire
Or we could have seen him completely flail and ruin everything.. we simply don't know what would have happened (biggie and Tupac surviving rings a bell...)
@@benjamies4136 Based on his statesmanship up to that point, that seems quite unlikely, though the toll of Hephastion's death was immense. If we had've survived, I agree it could go either way, but given all the shits he'd done and been through, it seems more likely he would've gotten through it. Just my take tho
We should also be wary of some of the reasons people disliked him, and dispel myths like the idea he was some proto-cosmopolitan with the persian-greek marriage, even though ALL of the soldiers there divorced their wives as soon as Alexander died except for one lmao
@@TroyJellymandepend though would he ever actually stop invading Alexander seemed focused on invading would he had fallen into the Rome trap and invaded so much it starts crippling the the Empire
No idea why some Indians are so much in denial of Alexander and the Indo Greeks. It's a part of history and a really interesting one at that
You think they’d be proud of being the ones to stop Alexanders conquests.
@@deeznoots6241it’s not possible because of their fairytale empire that owned all of Asia lol
@@cassu6
Keep crying we invaded and conquered Pakistan WHICH IS INDIA but muslim you are basically the same people.
We did own the entire middle east and people though the world extended to persia and a few tribes.
@@Hypogeal-Foundation Who are you talking about? I was talking about the Indian nationalist fairy tale empire...
@@cassu6 those are only just some very misinformed people. please dont consider them as the majority.
14:54 That's kind of a bar
"Fratricide, Patricide, Genocide, Crocs
So many cides you can call man a box"
I wanna see an ERB between Mithridates and Pompey that'd be fire
Don't listen to the hate comments Laith. This video was very interesting and fun to watch and I do like hearing diffrent people's perspectives and opinions on matters like this. Please continue this series!
I love how Temujin needed zero explanation for why he's among the greatest of greats.
When it comes to lasting legacy, Charlemagne is definitely one of the GOATs. His renaissance made latin immortal (no native speakers but widely written). His commissioned re-classicized latin pronunciation from Alcuin is still used by the Catholic church today. The carolingian miniscule introduced the distinction between uppercase and lowercase letters, more punctuation, and the standardization of spaces between words in the roman alphabet.
Cyrus definitely deserves his own tier. Dude conquered massive amount of territory, established proper rule, was religiously tolerant and had a massive cultural impact that'd last for centuries. There's nothing this guy couldn't do and definitely the greatest of the greats.
He also built the second temple for the Jews and also brought them back from exile, he was so impactful that apparently he was the only non-jew to be a messiah
Eh
He was the first conqueror in history and the first great king
Constantine didn't name Constantinopole after himself, the locals named it after him after he had died.
(Edit: Also, it is extremely unfair to lower Constantine's glory simply cause he converted to Christianity, Constantine DEFINITELY deserved to be in The Great "Great" column
Please do more of these history videos and I can’t wait for more continents/subcontinents.
So here's a history question then Laith. Why do we not call Napoleon "the Great"? And why didn't France call him that before his downfall?
same for Bismarck. Napoleon probably because he "defined" his name as the great. People didn't aspire to be "the great", but a "second Napoleon"
@@hoodwalker6491Bismarck is heavily criticized nowadays because his ways perpetuated the Prussia militaristic culture which leads Germany down a dark path.
Yes he unified Germany but it’s not a given that his methods justified the means.
@Christian B Bismarck was remembered not because he’s a famed conqueror he’s remembered because he’s a funny character in German history that made german history and predicted ww1
@@christianb1373 His methods definitely did. Arguably without those methods there wouldn't be Germany.
The fact that Xerses is called the great but Napoleon isn’t is one of the greatest injustices of history
I think you really undervalue the importance of religion in this list. To be clear, I'm personally an athiest not like a Christian nationalist or anything. But religion was just SO important at both the state and the individual level that it's difficult to justify ignoring it.
True, but also if there was a ruler who was simply called “The Great” because he massacred people of the wrong religion, I can see how it’d be a bit hard to discuss on a UA-cam channel.
Agree with this, in the sense that religion effectively = culture up until nationalism, especially for the regions this list is focused on
I think the reason is that typically there's bias in the other direction, where those religious greats are propped up above where they might belong because the history is told through a religous lense
@@liamreilly951 Certainly not for Germany, Russia, Iran, China, or India. Though they pretty much always had nationalism. Of course, their religions are sometimes co-opted for them.
Though the most important parts of culture tend to be the ones you do subconsciously, without thinking, such as:
• Monogamy or the various forms of polygamy
• Your attitude to national interests
• Your attitude to religion 🗄, distinct from the religious beliefs
• Your beliefs about a human's utility and monetary value 💎
• Your attitude to diplomacy
• Your attitude to judging people
• Your beliefs about the world
• Your beliefs about yourself
@kevingrau2614 To be fair, this was back when humanity's semi-aquatic roots were still very obvious and coastal land was much more prosperous than dry land.
I think the craziest part about the time of Justinian is that you basically had his twin in Khosrow, major military conquests and victories, completely reformed the legal system and made major societal and military reforms. It’s kind of interesting to see how the moment Rome and Persia stopped fighting they immediately both had a sort of Renaissance in power and security.
Khosrow I the immortal >>> Justinian the Great In 6 century Sassanian Empire under Khosrow I the immortal soul and Byzantium Empire at is greatest extent under Justinian the Great the 2 most powerful Empire of there time famously know as the two eyes of the earth but who was more powerful in 6 century the answer is Sassanian Empire let’s me explain Sassanian Empire won the war vs them and force them to pay tribute Khosrow I the Immortal also destroyed the Hephthalites ended the Sassanian Hephthalites war and also beat Aksumite Empire which was the most powerful Empire in Africa in that time they also made the Göktürk Empire look like complete joke in First Perso-Turkic War in 6 century Sassanian won almost 100 % of there war in 6th century including against Byzantium Empire most of the time strongest in 6 century is Sassanian Empire no argument
For me Charlemagne got the epithet because of his economic and cultural reforms. He centralized the Frankish currency and produced some of the first orderly writing systems. He also brought about basic schooling for the peasantry by introducing state sponsored education through chapel schools. While most of his actions are religiously driven he was a major reason as to why the romance language of French is the way it is today. He also influenced the formation of both France and Germany as Otto the Great only took the power he did because the House of Karling died out. I'd argue if the sons of Charlemagne did not infight as much they would have held a major stake in European affairs for century.
CONSTANTINES ENEMIES LITERALLY REFUSED TO LOOK AT HIM AND FEARD HIS DIVINE POWER WHAAAT
There is also Vytautas the Great. Grand Duke of Lithuania during its peak. Maybe not so much on par with the rest of these greats but still interesting cunning character who helped set foundation for Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth. Great video, waiting for other like this
Vytautas the forgotten one
Wait was he the only king of Lithuania?
@@mrtrollnator123 no, its was mindaugas. Poland didin't want him to be king so they sabotaged the Coronation by stealing the crown 2 times to make sure he dosean't become king.
You could do an Asian one with figures like Ashoka, Akbar, Rajendra, Sejong, Qin Shi Huang, Kublai Khan, Bayinnaung, Naresuan... I was also surprised to see figures like Sargon, Nebuchadnezzar, Simeon I and Vladimir of Kiev missing from this list. So definitely room for a part 2!
I usually don't comment on youtube videos, but you should definitely keep this series going. You're entertaining and seemingly knowledgeable about history, there's a need (and gap) for this type of content
Great video! I would love to see a Chinese emperor tierlist.
The only problem with that is many of those rulers may be mythical and would it just have the ones with the Mandate of Heaven? China is the oldest society ever and would be impossible to rank all of them even if it would be interesting
@@oscarhess1376 you're right. Probably just the most famous ones. Although it would also be interesting to rank all the mythical ones
How about all emperors since Qin Shi Huang?
@@oscarhess1376Mythical ones can be counted with your ten fingers. I think you meant to include Legendary? And even then, arguably can be counted with 10 fingers
@@oscarhess1376 Brother this can applies EVERYWHERE though. The 7 Roman kings weren't real but there's plently of people doing tier lists on Roman leaders.
In fact there's literally less mythical Chinese leaders than Roman Lmao
The reason why Xerxes the Great is called such is because of a translation of one of the titles for the King of Persia.
I am glad to see King Kamehameha I on the list as a Hawaiian it always makes me happy to see people speak of our Islands, and I wish you Laith a Great Day Mahalo Nui Loa for speaking of our King, and before I go I wanna share a fun fact Kamehameha was 7 Feet or taller or Over 2.1336 Meters we know this because of his cape or ahu'ula was About 6 feet and reached to his Ankles traditionally
Shoutout to Civ V for teaching me about Kamehameha.
Yes, he is fun may not be strongest but defiantly fun
Hawaii is a really interesting us state in my opinion but I would have a question about Hawaii. Why did the independent Kingdom of Hawaii have the british flag in its own flag?
@@fureszadam3160 It's an intresting story with 2 parts of it the first is when King Kamehameha saw the flag he liked it and had his best fabric weavers make it into the modern Hawai'ian Flag, and second to solidify the Hawi'ian - British Alliance
Costantine never lost a battle and he’s the one with the greatest impact on history on this list, not putting him on greatest of all time is just wrong
How are you not going to mention that over his life, Mithridates built up a strong resistance to poisons, and then later tried to kill himself with it but failed due to the aforementioned immunity which he purposefully cultivated. Pretty funny stuff
Love seeing more direct history content keep it up! And dont forget to research the Lathe
Just the ck3 quote for Genghis Khan is enough:
"Temujin is the punishment sent by Tengri to punish all 9f the worlds sins, for if the world wasnt full of sinners, why would Tengri have sent Temujin?"
This was an excellent video, please do make more.
My biggest gripe is with your placement of Alfred the great, as while I agree with your assessment of his military exploits, iirc under his rule the English language (or more accurately what would become the English language), sky-rocketed into one of the most prestigious academic languages in Europe (at least until William the conqueror turned up and ground it into the mud for the next 400 odd years)
I'd also rate Alfred for his cultural achievements, from writing the first book in English, starting the ASC and hiring Viking mercenaries to explore the Baltic, and also setting up the systems of fyrds, burhs and shires which his son and grandson would exploit decisively. Otherwise this video was hilarious and pretty well on the nose.
@@marrrtin The administration created by Alfred would effectively make Anglosaxon England the most centralized and effective beauracracy in Europe prior to the norman conquest. Compare this to the Kingdom of France during the 10th - 12th centuries where The Kingdom was far less centralized than England. The Holy Roman Empire was during this period a lot more centralized and stabled than it would later nototiously become, but it still wasn't as well managed as England. Alfred's reforms not only saved England from being snuffed out by the Vikings before it even got a chance, but turned wessex from a more primitive saxon kingdom into a military and administrative powerhouse that with strong institutions that would be among the greatest powers in europe.
@@zakariyaabdullahi5669 The problem is that Egbert laid the foundations of it all by having the most centralised and influential kingdom on the British isles and then Alfreds son actially made England a thing.
So he is a bit more of a midle man or a part of a 3 man prosses.
@@stefankatsarov5806 Well Egbert's Kingdom was nearly almost certainly fell. It was momentarily conquered by danes with Guthrum ruling wessex, with Alfred hiding in the somerset marshes. So Alfred isn't just a middle man, he brought back a Kingdom that momentarily ceased to exist and made it strong. Let's also keep in mind Alfred's Burh building project that Put a stop to the lightning vast viking raids that plagued the saxon kingdoms before they had all fallen, and the reformed military system with the fyrds building and manning the burhs, with all adult men eligble to be called up for conscription, supplemented by the King's professional army that would march to meet any threat. So I don't think its fair to call Alfred just a middle man
I think some more credit should be given to Constantine based on his military accomplishments, since he went from being setup to be the least of the tetrarch successors (and arguably the other Tetrarchs were originally all aligned against him inheriting any position at all) ruling the most peripheral state to defeating everyone else in succession until there was nobody else left. Sure, he had his dad's army to accomplish that, but so did Alexander. Some criticism should be made about him sabotaging his own succession by being a horrible dad though.
I think labeling the pictures would help keep everyone straight, for both us and you. Either that or using more "fantastical" artwork like a Civ/Paradox portrait (IIRC Suleiman is one of the EU4 loading screens). But I'd still love to see more!
Also, IIRC Cyrus the Great is the only non-Hebrew to be given the title "Messiah" which in a Jewish context means "Savior". So that's definitely a few extra points in his favor!
The only non-hebrew to be named messiah in the bible, there were more non-hebrews claimed as messiah but only Cyrus was remembered as one after centuries
First. How dare you not include Simeon I of Bulgaria. Defenetly worth having a look at him in a later video.
Second. I feel the reason Mithradetes could be considered "Great" is his contribution to medicine in addition to his military achievements.
Simeon the pretty competent
@@matztz_4560 Simeon the alright statesman
@@nedaraid3372Simeon the solidly above average
Shah Abbas the Great >>> Simeon I of Bulgaria
not sure how the emphasis on Constantine's relation with Christianity knocks him down
I agree with most of this list, but i do think Alfred should be in either in "not really great" or "the great" because the way that he turned the tide of the war and forced the norse to a peace in his terms is incredible in my opinion
You're harsh on Alfred the Great. Without his victory over the great heathen army, England may never have come to be, and our language, culture, history and identity would be entirely different.
Didn't William shape the language way more?
Justice for Alfred he defended his kingdom coming from being a third born son or something he defense Wessex against a much more powerful enemy he also secured peace with said vikings and also had a lot of great reforms such as transferring classical texts from Latin into English he also set up public schools and revised and reworked the law code
Alexander died really young and unexpectedly, I wouldn't count the lack of planning against him. Also Ramses did not build Pyramids - the Great Pyramids were already 1500 years old by the time he got around (he did build a lot of other stuff though).
Alexander was "totally not murdered" by any of the men around him. Fever is a better term lmao
You should check out more Georgian rulers, for example:
King Tamar of Georgia
David IV of Georgia (The Builder)
Heraclius II of Georgia
George V of Georgia ( The Magnificent)
Pharasmanes II of Iberia (The Merciful)
Demetrius I of Georgia
George III of Georgia
Vakhtang I of Iberia (The Wolfheaded)
Bagrat III of Georgia
Vakhtang VI of Kartli
fun fact abt mithridates, he was so paranoid abt being poisoned that he committed himself to gaining immunity to it. then, when it came to committing suicide to prevent being humiliated by rome, he poisoned himself, and ended up surviving
Damn you didn't include Tsar Simeon the great of Bulgaria? It's a shame, since he was actually a giga chad (i'm totally not biased at all)
His dad was also quite nice (well, maybe he went a bit too far when he blinded his first born son after the whole "reinstating paganism" thing)
@@bosertheropode5443 That was a common practice in the region at the time, since it meant he codnt rule over a nation acording to the customs.
@@stefankatsarov5806 You're right, and to be fair it was a stupid idea to reinstate tengrism under Boris watchful eyes, it was pretty clear he wouldn't be very fond of that idea.
He’s too much of a Roman simp.
YES JUSTINIAN IS A GREAT. Its so sad that so many great works are lost but Procopius fake history survives :(
(Please read this, I know it’s a long read but Charlemagne is a large topic) Excuse you, but Charlemagne, the father of Europe and the first holy Roman emperor, defender of the pope and grandfather of modern kings should join Cyrus the Great in that special ranking. Yes, he inherited a strong nation from his father but his expansion was incredible. He conquered northern Italy, modern Germany and put down several Saxon rebellions, managed to pacify that region which is so unruly and not only that but he set up the success for his dynasty in the hundreds of years to come.
The thing about Charlemagne and the Karlings in general is that they didn’t just triumph, they planned decades, hundreds of years ahead. They aimed for the success of their dynasty, not just themselves. Think of Charlemagne like Tywin Lannister. Like you said he also started the Carolingian renaissance and he WAS undefeated in battle because the battle you mentioned was technically an ambush and he didn’t command the army, he was already far ahead. It was his knights that held the rear and even if it counted it would only be one loss.
Not only that, but speaking of lasting impacts, he is the direct descendant of the Capetian and Habsburg houses which spread from his Karling dynasty and so in the process of intricately planning the success of his Karling dynasty he advanced all the houses linked to it including the Capetians and later the Habsburgs. He was the master of Europe. He essentially was responsible for every thing that happened in Europe after him and the name Karling still held power even after their fall from grace in around the 12th century and to marry one of the surviving strands of such a prestigious house was considered an immense gift.
I would not even say that the karlings died out. I think that the dynasty just changed name. It all stemmed from the greatest and most effective ruler of a dynasty, Charlemagne.
My brother in Christ, Charlemagne had a cultural impact on Europe as a whole that not making him one of the greatest of the greats would be a disservice to all he has done. His ideas and figure would literally become the base that nearly all European monarchs and aristocrats would compare themselves to.
I'm biased but Constantine should be higher. He went from the backwater of the empire when his father died as co-emperor to fighting with massive numerical disadvantage across Rome. He effectively set up the Byzantine empire to live another thousand years and was the guy who called the council to make The Bible. Religion aside being the guy who caused the most influential book, setting up many of these other greats as it widely united Christian thought, to be put together there is no doubt that he is top tier.
The king/emperor who should have been on the list instead of Stefan Uros I is Stefa Uros IV Dusan "The Mighty". Dusan was an excellent general, administrator and lawgiver. He managed to expand the Serbian state and turn it into the strongest power in the Balkans at that time. His only fault is that he died early. The main reason he didn't get the title "Great" is that he has the title "Mighty"
38:44 *justinian also inherited a really powerful and prosperous empire, his achievements came at the cost of nearly bankrupting the empire and leaving it weakened*
He had several competent people under his command, his skill was at picking the right people rather then himself doing great things. When he got more directly involved his decisions pretty much hurt the progress of his subordinates (belassarius had to start off on a shoestring budget, yet justinian kept reducing belassrius' budget further rather than increasing it). He goes in "The Great" category
Picking the right people is the best thing a ruler can realistically do. There are too many rulers who are really freaking moronic because they pick other morons to run their realms. Justinian was super unpopular during his reign so it doesn't surprise me he was semi paranoid about a famous general who reconquered North Africa and Italy maybe assuming the purple. We have the benefit of hindsight and he did not and probably wanted/had to play it safe. The plague did Justinian in more than his spending habits. Which really freaking blows considering how much effort it took to bring about a reconquest.
@@bcvetkov8534 Augustus had agrippa, belissarius could have been that to justinian. If justinian just increasing belissarius' budget and not pull him away from Italy to fight Persians, the Italian reconquests could have been actually beneficial. Justinian half-assed it so it became a money pit. Belissarius was almost done securing Italy, he just needed a little more time.
@@sasi5841 Again we have the benefit of hindsight and communication was really shite over long distances. To Belisarius who was in Italy. he just needed had to take Ravenna. To Justinian who was in Constantinople administrating the empire he had no idea how much longer it would take to finish the reconquest of Italy. The Persian invasion seemed like the more pressing issue since the Eastern provinces were worth protecting more than the Western ones. Egypt and the Levant paid for the empire through trade, agriculture and taxation. The grain Egypt produced fed the capital and most of the provinces. If the Persians were beaten Belisarius could always return to Italy to finish later on. Especially, if the Romans won and war reparations were given to the Romans by the Sassanids.
Honestly, I was half expecting a sneaky little addition of Roger II in the GOAT category
As someone more familiar with Kamehameha, I think it’s fair to evaluate the small scope of his kingdom in comparison with the allowance of the geographical situation. But by the same logic, he made greater cultural and societal advancements than probably most any of the others.
I think Kamehameha is such an underdog and an incredible man. Especially, since he didn't have a lot to go off on. He did the best he could. He literally created the Hawaiian state and identity.
I could not agree more so with what you have said
I´dont think I have ever heard anyone call Uros "The Great" or any other nickname, but thanks for including him on the tier list.
I do agree with you about Otto the Great, but he got the idea of the Holy Roman Empire from Charlemagne and fixed the problem it had by creating the Holy Roman Empire that most are familiar with.
Mythridates the 6th was technically a holy leader because when he was born he was born under a comet which was seen as a good omen and then when he was crowned king ANOTHER comet appeared in the night sky further reinforcing his holy status as a king crowned by the gods.
Heavy dIsagree on Constantine, dude was perhaps more influential than all others on that list, he should be at the top and definitely above Justinian and shit like Ramesses. He defeated various enemies of the Empires and all other romans that opposed him. He reformed the economy, reformed the military and his conversion signifies a massive change in human history.
He's probably a bit biased against Christianity.
@@joaofrancisco42 Definitely
The dismissal of Alfred is a bit irksome. Impact on history is surely huge through setting up England as a concept. Failures of later kings (and not even his immediate successors) canmot be attributed to him. His start was very bad, and going on a conquest spree was never on the cards. Just imagine how different the world would be without Alfred or Charlemagne.
Terrible takes on Constantine and Charlemagne. Also massive under appreciation of the importance of religion in establishing a unified empire and identity. Unfortunate Laith L.
Laith really forgot about the effect religious tension tends to have on empires
Virtually all religions 🗄 come with either monogamy or exclusive marriages within it (at least it attempts exclusion).
Which prevents the much easier option of just marrying everyone.
And a terrible take on alfred too. L move.
Are we going to ignore that Charlemagne nearly saved all of Europe and standardized latin. Creating the Carolingian renaissance stopping the continued push of Andalusian slave traders. Kind of a big deal
Constantine is a greatest of al time. He arguably has more impact on World History than most people here. He won a civil war, made great works, and you cant reduce the impact he had on the Christian caite.
Yes
I think you should swap Justinian and Constantine but otherwise pretty spot on
3:25 “Which lead up to a lot of things” *Shows himself in fullscreen in a frame*
10:40 the Holy Roman Empire was just as disunited as other feudal states at the time like France
I've never heard Valentinian called 'The Great'. He was one of the most competent monarchs of his era, but he was overshadowed by Constantine and right afterwards, Theodosius.
However, he did once get so angry that he straight up died on the spot, which is funny.
You forgoth Simeon I "The Great" tsar of Bulgaria from 894-927. During his reing Bulgaria reach its all time peak and started its first golden century. The curylic alphabet was invented then and it together whit the vast culture advansments influenced alot of slavic nations, most notably Russia. He also became the regent of the Byzantine emperor hence his title tsar( empereror ) of bulgarians and romans. He also won the biggest battle in early medieval Europe at the river Aheloy, 60 000 bulgarians vs 62 000 romans where 60 000 romans died, making it one of the blodiest battles in all of history.
Love the idea of the video. I often listen to their stories/history so good to see comparisons.
Laith the Great will put the rest of the Greats to their place. What a great dude
I disagree with Constantine being only a Great. I think he should be in the tier above. Yes, a lot of his great points come from being the first Christian Roman Emperor, but he had a huge impact on Christianity and Europe as a hole. Whether or not Christianity would have become the dominant religion without his conversion is debatable, and even if it did come to dominate it probably would not have looked the same as it does today. The sheer amount that is influenced by him is staggering.
8:19 you are absolutely correct about being wrong, "Szczerbiec" was made after the death of Boleslaw the brave and the swords legend of being chipped on the golden gate couldn't be true since the gate didn't exist during the time of Boleslaw, also I'd argue his father was greater then him
Justinian in GOAT tier while Constantine is mid tier is criminal
We all know why - Rome was transferred to the East and this doesn't go well with all the fake Frankish kings-claiming to be Romans - gouh gouh
think you got it reversed chief
Kamehameha I did a lot of impressive things not only did he unite all of the Hawaiian Islands, but he even got the respect of the British and avoided colonization of Hawaii because he maintained great relations with the British.
Ramesses should be higher just for making you go to the shadow realm for half a minute.
Alfred the great isn't bloody average 😂 the man sure lost but come back with a vengeance without him his line would have never formed England my opinion
sure, but you have a lot of rulers through history that did that. There is multiple British kings that are more impressive than Alfred
If I recall Kamehameha was the reason it took so long for the Europeans to take over Hawaii and is the reason behind the islands technological advancements
Have to disagree on Alfred the Great - he was on the backfoot against an army that destroyed all other kingdoms, but still won. Had he failed to defeat the great heathen army then England and the English as we know it would never have existed. This would have had untold implications on global history. A Norse England would have had a base to attack the whole of Europe from, and with no 1066 event to end slavery in England, the thrall system would endure for centuries. Considering the UK's pivotal role in ending slavery, that means it would unlikely be ended, as it has existed throughout history but it was only the Anglosphere that not only banned it, but crusaded against it, much to the resistance of the rest of the world. No England, no Anglosphere, no abolitionist movement.
Additionally, he instituted the Burgh system that fortified key locations and created an army, both of which helped his successors. He also promoted learning, and unlike Charlegmne he could actually read. He got his family into key positions in other courts, with the credibility bought by his victory.
Granted it was his successors that united England, but it was uniquely Alfred that gave them the foundations. Had it been any other leader, then likely all of history would have been different.
True he wasn't given the title 'Great' until centuries later, but in the 1,000 year since his death we can see the true impact of his life, and it is almost unmatched. Remove a single person from history and you create a new world over-time, but the current of how history flows will seldom change due to how rarely one's actions have such an impact.
Alfred is one of the very few people that, if he is removed, would lead to a totally different reality.
Your opinion on Alfred the great is UNBASED lemme tell you why.
He was the last Saxon king to withstand the Norse onslaught, even when his kingdom was conquered by the Norse, he just went around the land rallying troops and men still loyal to him and then reconquered his kingdom, he basically lost everything but still managed to triumph because of his force of will.
While it's true that Knut eventually conquered everything, don't forget that at that point, Knut at most of the Vikings were christians, making the Saxons much more chill about them, this was thanks in large part to Alfred and his successors, and while it's true that his successors did a better job at forging an English/Saxon nationality, they only managed to do this because Alfred fought tooth and nail to reconquer his kingdom, he made deals with the Norse(also converting them to christianity) and also made reforms to better respond against viking raids, basically the entire history of England would be different if this guy had given up.
That's it and thanks for seeing me being a fanboy of Alfred.
Only a Brit could put Charlemagne in such a bad place... (Even if their king, Charles III, own his name to Charlemagne :p there is a reason why Charles was used by so many Euro monarchs).
Fun video btw!
Charlemagne has to be in highest tier. Expansion does not matter, nearly all Europe and two of the most dominant Nations claim to be his succecors.
The main criticism of Otto is that his successes lead to the later HRE being a decentralised mess? Well, to be honest, I think the highly decentralised nature of the HRE was a *good* thing for the majority of the people living within it, and its very structure functioned as a guarantee that everyone within the hierarchy would be accountable to those below them. Not great for the Emperors themselves, perhaps, but I view the HRE as one of the greatest historical "states" because of this.
Living in a centralised absolutist French empire would be better as a peasant than living in the feudal version of it, as the only person who would extort you for taxes would be the central state, not local landowners and barons. Now I don't know much about how the HRE ran, but if it was similar to how the French feudal system worked (which it would probably be worse than due to the earlier abolition of serfdom in France), then I would've preferred a centralised autocratic kingdom
@@whoisjoe5610 It's not quite as simple as that. For example, there were territories throughout the HRE (the Free Cities, for example) that were only subject to the Emperor regardless. And the Emperor actually had pretty limited authority in terms of taxation - no part of the hierarchy had absolute authority on that, which lead to the development of more "constitutional" taxation methods.
As well as this, local lords would be much more dependant on any given town being healthy than someone ruling a vaster area would, and so would often provide for them in terms of things like housing and healthcare.
Also, with serfdom...many of the serfs in the HRE were ministeriales - who were also members of the nobility. In fact, they made up *most* of the nobility. Had serfdom been an economic burden on *all* serfs in the HRE, they had plenty of power to change that - yet it remained in place for several centuries.
At the same time, much of the peasantry were exempt from serfdom. Such as inhabitants of the free cities, imperial villages, and more.
In fact, much of what my viewpoint on decentralisation comes down to is summarised in the above paragraph - if the people wanted change within the Empire, then they had much more power to force it through than their French contemporaries did. The decentralised nature of the HRE was an effective measure against tyranny, by limiting the power of both the monarch and nobles relative to the people.
Absolutely loved this, and would love to see more of this type of video for other regions, titles, and types of feats done throughout history.
Alfred the Great is the only reason England isn't Danish today. He is most definitely deserving of his title. You talk about Alfred's successors doing more but that wouldn't have even been possible if Alfred lost. You also blame Alfred for Cnut conquering England as if Cnut didn't conquer England 117 years after Alfred died.
33:33 It was his father the one who defeated the spanish tho. Louis will just bully during the entire lifespan of Charles II (wich was amazingly long considering he was what you imagine of a 0/0/0 ruler)
Actually (🤓) in Spain Charles II is not considered that bad. He wasn't great by any mean but made some reforms that Spain really needed. The problem is that he was ugly as hell and couldn't have children.
You should do a list of kings and emperors that should be called the great
Closed the video as soon as you classified Alfred
The Regiment of Giants was founded by Frederic the I, the father of frederic the great, but Frederic the great was its first commander.
The muslims were prisonors of war were given to his father by the duke of courland (in Latvia)
I love your history-centric videos, defo my some of my favourite stuff on UA-cam
3:25 best green screen ever :)
You should do another one of monarchs who deserve to be called “the Great”. Henry II of England is unquestionably at the top of that list, or Frederick II Hohenstaufen.
Constantine is in the GOAT category with ease.. For one, he is the very only Roman Emperor who never lost a single battle, whether in civil wars or against barbarians, and afaik the only of 2 romans to hold that extremely impressive claim, the second being the great Scipio Africanus who defeated Hannibal himself. The Battle of the Milvian Bridge was one of the most important battles ever and changed the course of history. It can be argued that Christianity would've eventually become the dominant religion no matter what, and while I agree with that statement, it would've come later and I doubt the man embracing Christianity would've been as solid as Constantine (who was probably not even the first Christian emperor, some believe Philip the Arab was a secret Christian) and it would have had such an impact on the world. Then there's building Constantinople aka Nova Roma as he called it, he saw that the east had more chance of survival (and likely prefered it as the West was much more pagan during his reign) and Byzantium was geographically nearly impenetrable, which didn't fall until over 1000yrs after his death. Dude basically built a freaking thousand year empire.
As for Justinian, ehhh. Maybe "great" great tier at best.
Okay, I do have a bone to pick with your interpretation of Charlemagne and Cyrus. The Achaemenid Empire falls in part because they didn't achieve an unified identity, which of course is partly caused by how much they allowed people to remain themselves. You are right, Charlemagne is called the great in huge part because under him, Christianity is spread all over his empire, but that is an incredible good way to create that unified identity.
From our modern point of view that's of course not exactly the greatest thing to do, but if you are trying to create an empire that unifies people you do need to do that.
The point that is usually made about Charlemagne is that it's pretty hard to say if he is called the Great because he created a united identity for Europe or if it is just because that identity he created happens to be Christianity lmao Otto basically did everything he did AND managed to make it last almost 800 years whereas Charlemagnes empire descended into civil war almost instantly after his death. One can argue that many other rulers did something similar or more impressive than him but are not nearly as recognised
@@gabrieldossantos1116 A united European identity? Not in the slightest
Achaemenids did have a unified and unique identity, I suggest you study the engravings of Persepolis.
@@sebe2255 Yup, but that's how he is viewed and portrait most of the times even tho it doesn't make any much sense in a deeper analysis.
@@sobhanhayati3962 Not really, there was a pretty clear difference between Persians and Egiptians for example. In Charlemagne's empire you have a similar situation, there is a pretty big difference between the Franks and the Saxons, but they did have the unifying faith.
We need more of these type of tier list, this and the general one was amazing!
I'm glad you pointed out how sweden did not have the *population base* to become a world power... and yet they did. Plenty of examples like this in history, but the way sweden was able to consistently beat the odds for a number of years is just crazy to me.
Probably the most deserving is the entire city 🏙 of Novgorod, which regained "the Great" title and keeps it to this day.
Also, the city of Venice deserved its title as the most serene Republic.
An interesting thing to think about for the next one of these is that there actually was a 21st Century king who has the epithet "The Great." The former Thai king: Bhumibol/Rama IX.
I don’t get the constantine placement, the guy founded one of the most important cities of all time and his policies and decisions influenced history for the coming 1500 years. Yet he is below people like peter, darius and theodoric who’s influence was gone after about a century. I’d put him high Great ”Great” or maybe goat tier
Actually the word Tsar is a slavonic transcription of the word Caesar (in ancient rus the holy roman emperor, the byzantine emperor and the mongolian khan were all called tsars), so Peter the Great didn`t name himself the emperor, he just westernised the title. Fun fact: the Romanovs were not recognised by the western monarchies as equal, but Karl V, the holy roman Emperor, called the russian tsar Ivan IV brother in personal correspondence, the only monarch he called so.
As the only member of the Pontic kingdom fan club, I will say that Mithridates should be one tier higher for not executing his son Pharnaces II, who would go on to prove that you don’t need to win battles to become the maddest lad in history
wholeheartedly agree!!
Mithridates the Great The Poison King fought with Rome in the First, Second and Third Mithridatic War
Who fought against Mithridates?
The Roman commanders and generals who fought Mithridates in the First Mithridatic War:
1.Lucius Cornelius Sulla
2.Gaius Flavius Fimbria
3.Lucius Licinius Lucullus
4.Manius Aquilius
5.Quintus Oppius
6.Lucius Cassius
7.Lucius Licinius Murena
Also (8.)Nicomedes IV Philopator but he wasn’t Roman.
The Roman commanders and generals who fought Mithridates in the Second Mithridatic War:
1.Lucius Licinius Murena
2.Gaius Flavius Fimbria
The Roman commanders and generals who fought Mithridates in the Third Mithridatic War:
1.Lucullus
2.Marcus Aurelius Cotta
3.Pompey
Mithridates the Great The Poison King fought some of the best Roman military commander and ruler in history of Rome
I agree
Maybe it would be better if the tiles of the kings had the name at the bottom, so that it is easier to follow
Solomon's independence ended fifteen years after Krtsanisi, when Russia marched in and simply deposed him.
No love for queen Margarete I of Denmark? Considering the fact that she unified Scandinavia in a union that would last for over a century I would imagine she'd be in the run for greatest Scandinavian ruler.
not known as a "great" sadly
more of this stuff plz I like, love your stuff and committment to this plus everything else going on in your life. proud of you man keep up the great work
I'm surprised you did not put Pompe the Great in your list, as he was a consul of the republic, so he could be considered as a ruler, and a quite important one with a rich background: not a nobleman but managed to become a figurehead of Rome in the East, 3 triomphs, so much could have been said about him.
I'm quite happy to see Cyrus in the top of this list, the man was a god-tier ruler , the whole known world revered him and he was even called the Messiah by the Jews
Great video Laith, i love this kind of content!
Love these kind of videos, keep it up
the tier list is great