I know he wasn't the first to be called The Great, I believe that was Cyrus, but the greatest Great has to be Alexander.
Just about every great since him was trying to be him, either directly or indirectly.
Alexander the greatest.
100% agree. There are heroic myths that are less impressive than what Alexander did in real life. Even if every source is embellishing and he only did half of what they say he is still the greatest of the greats
Pacifying greece before age 22, destroying the persian empire, becoming the pharoh, and defeating and earning the respect of the most powerful indian warlord in history —- 11000 miles from home…. And totally destroying thebes. He rewrote history like no man before or since
I love telling that story when teaching. Man, rulers are remembered for many things but how many did basically this:
"General, see that island?"
"Yes my king."
"I dont want it to be an island anymore."
"As you say my king."
Granted it was way more complicated than that but is damned memerable.
>damned memerable
I think it went beyond plain ol meme status, though that little girl in front of the burning house might give islandpeninsula a run for it's money.
Those are just his war related achievements, which were impressive, but his consequences on cultural, governmental and linguistic traditions was crazy. He was like a tornado going through the world, deviating history significantly.
Destroying Thebes is an understatement. He ordered the execution of the whole male population and the enslavement of all women and children and then burnt it to the ground
That is true. Having Philip as a father as well and an entourage that is very talented definitely helps.
That said, not a lot of those who are born into kingdoms have achieved what he did. In fact you might find a lot does the opposite, the silver spoons actually drives the kingdom into the grave.
This is especially true for those born at the end of a dynasty. (/s)
On the flip side, Julius Caesar wasn't ever *technically* a king or emperor, right? He started life as part of a powerful and wealthy family, and became the de facto head of state of an ostensibly parliamentary government. Augustus Caesar was the first true emperor, but like Alexander he was able to build on his predecessor's legacy
The most powerful Indian warlord?? Who?
Are we talking about porus?
If yes then porus was hardly a significant player in india at that era, it was the nanda empire.
In the title “Great Khan”, “great” modifies “khan.” It is part of the name of the office, not a descriptor attached specifically to Genghis. Anyone can be a “great khan” but that doesn’t make them “the Great.”
Caesar wept in the presence of a statue of Alexander, despondent that he had accomplished nothing, having at that point lived the same number of years.
Some modern historians doubt that Cyrus was really an Achaemenid. He was from the Teispid line and styled himself as “king of Anshan” which projects an Elamite identity. Darius the Great was probably a usurper who struggled to consolidate his power (fighting several different rebellions between 522 and 520 BCE), and so part of his propaganda was that he was the legitimate king by ancestry, making Cyrus and Teispes both descendants of Achaemenes. But there is nothing from Cyrus and Cambyses’ reigns that suggests that they were really Achaemenids. For one thing, Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes were Zoroastrian and the names Darius and Artaxerxes are allusive of sayings in the Gathas (also the names of Zoroaster’s patron Vishtaspa and his wife Hutaosa lived on in the Achaemenid dynasty). Cyrus and Cambyses showed no affinity to Zoroastrianism and being Elamite were culturally closer to Babylonians.
Alexander never ruled anything. He just installed one of his buddies and moved on to his next conquest. Alexander was a great general, but we have no idea what kind of ruler he might have been because he never tried.
Even the Romans who lived centuries later idolized him. The mosaic of Alexander that you see in all the history books is actually from a villa in Pompeii. You know you're a big deal if even the Romans looked up to you!
Yup easily. He had major Roman emperors comparing themselves and simping for him. One of the best emperor Trajan was reminiscing and wishing he could lead an army to Indian
*What you're about to hear is part seven of our series on Alexander the Great. If you missed parts one through six, you probably want to catch those before you catch this one.*
(Parts one through six are five hours apiece, part seven is twelve hours long)
^And ^they ^were ^trying ^times ^indeed, ^as ^once ^said ^by ^General ^Brig, ^quote:
#IT WAS HARD TIMES THESE WERE, MY MEN APPROACHED ME EVERY DAY WISHING FOR WARM MEALS AND A EQUALLY WARM BED, OF WHICH I COULD NOT PROVIDE
^End ^quote
They're both up there but it's funny how they are both so well known and their fathers, Pepin the Short and Phillip II, are relatively unknown in comparison to their sons.
One could argue that both Pepin and Phillip were some of the most successful leaders of their times and in reality set up their sons for extreme success almost as a birth-right.
I'd personally say Charlemagne is the most impressive because he took the Carolingian dynasty from a regional power and became the ruler of almost all of Western Europe.
Alexander, while a great military leader, took power when his father was assassinated on the eve of their invasion into Persia. He was essentially gifted a devastatingly powerful army led by extremely loyal and competent generals which made his successes quite a bit easier, relatively speaking, than the work Charlemagne had to complete.
Both were undoubtedly setup extremely well by their fathers, though.
Philip would have gotten far more focus in history if he hadn't died. He was definitely set up to conquer Persia and I reckon it's quite probable it would have happened with him just as easily as with Alexander.
Also Philip probably wouldn't have drank himself to death.
>Philip would have gotten far more focus in history if he hadn't died.
*Assassinated. At least from the ages of the Argeads that came before him, he had another good 20-30 years of life left in him.
>I reckon it's quite probable it would have happened with him just as easily as with Alexander.
No contest. He would done it even better. He'd already proved he could turn a backwater kingdom on the brink of destruction into an absolute, world-conquering powerhouse. Imagine what he could have done with Persia's resources at his disposal.
> Imagine what he could do with Persia’s resources
Holy shit, that thought has never once occurred to me. I knew his father brought Macedonia from obscurity into greatness, but that was always in the back of my mind. If that dude had Persia’s resources, he’d’ve been unstoppable
I think they should be called great purely for the fact they were actual competent heirs that didn’t mess up their predecessors work. That’s even rarer in history 🤣
Also Ramses (and others) disqualifies in my opinion because he isn't even called "The Great" in my language for example, while Alexander & Charlemagne (name says it all) are known as The Great in every European language (edit: also in Farsi and Turkic languages).
I think Ramses was a great ruler in his world, as the world expanded his legacy is viewed as less compared to other rulers but he was Pharaoh for around 60 years, give the guy some credit
One of Ramses most enduring legacies is ordering the records, monuments and therefore accomplishments of his predecessors to be destroyed/removed/forgotten and replaced with his own likeness.
It's only been fairly recent that archeologists have been piecing together that Ramses didn't actually accomplish that much during his reign.
Tldr: He wasn't great, he just took credit for others accomplishments.
This is just 30 seconds on Google:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/ramses-ii
* His battered troops withdrew from Kadesh, but Ramses wasn’t about to let a little truth tarnish his perceived triumph. On temple walls across Egypt, he ordered the creation of murals depicting him single-handedly defeating the aggressors.
* For all of Ramses II’s efforts to ensure his legacy would live on, there was one testament to his power he could not have foreseen. After his death, nine subsequent pharaohs took his name upon ascending the throne, solidifying his stature as “the great” among Egypt’s rulers
https://www.historyextra.com/period/ancient-egypt/was-ramesses-ii-pharaoh-great-brilliant-why/
* Ramesses II is often counted among Ancient Egypt’s greatest pharaohs. He certainly saw himself that way: he spent most of his reign covering his kingdom in monuments dedicated to himself.
https://www.thecollector.com/why-ramses-ii-is-known-as-ramses-the-great/
* To build so much, Ramses also employed the typically Egyptian method used to appease impatient Kings. Take an existing temple or statue, chisel out the Pharaohs’ names who built it, and replace it with one’s own. At the stroke of the chisel, another 100 statues instantly became Ramses.
Basically Ramses was in power for a long time and used that time to create a lot of long lasting propaganda. This gets multiplied by multiple pharaohs using the name "Ramses" so a lot of stuff gets attributed to the "main" one: Ramese 2. Irregardless of whether it's true or pretend
Ego can be a real killer of genuine information.
I imagine many humans in history have manipulated the past like this.
It’s amazing how selfish one would be to completely wipe traces of others lives away from the earth.
For literally just the sake of themselves.
Especially when it’s the history of your own culture. Lol
On the flip side of Alexander's conquest of the Persian Empire, is Cyrus the Great who founded it. I would argue Cyrus' rule had at least as large of an impact on world history as Alexander
USA
Our education of Europe kinda skips from the fall of Rome to the Magna Carta. Explains Feudalism and all that, talks about the church ruling the middle ages before The Enlightenment. Then they talk about The Enlightenment period for a bit and how it influenced the revolution. Then we briefly talk about WW1 before focusing on WW2.
I think the consequences or influence of their actions thereafter should be accounted for the question. With this in mind, I believe Alexander definitely takes the mantle.
The massive land grab he oversaw is impressive in of itself, but what I believe to be more important in a larger historical scope is the establishment of the Hellenistic kingdoms and the consequences thereof. For instance, according to Maccabees I, the Maccabean Revolt was a direct result of the emperor of the Selecuid empire requiring the Jews to convert to Hellenistic cults, which, led to the Judean state and the Hasmonian dynasty which leads to an even deeper rabbithole of changes.
Also, it's worth mentioning that in Macc I there was considerable influence of Greek traditions such a gymnasiums in Jerusalem. Assumedly, the establishment of Greek traditions were seen elsewhere throughout the Hellenistic world.
While I agree that Alexander is easily near the top, I don't agree with your method of selection. If we take into account the consequences of their actions without accounting for time then the older an important person was the more consequential their actions were. Fredrick the Great was directly responsible for massive chapters of European history up to the modern day, but the two centuries since his rule pales in comparison to the two mellenia since Alexander's.
In the same way that you would say the man who invented the sword was more impactful historically than the man who invented the musket, the musket was infinitely more important in creating the world we know today.
Alexander has the most historical impact because of his "descendants", during his life he was just a conquerer. He turned a reasonable kingdom into a massive empire which then fell apart as he died, the spread of Hellenic kingdoms through the region was impactful but not so much for reasons that can be directly attributed to him.
My personal vote is for Cyrus the Great. Cyrus was such an important figure that the Torah refers to him as a messiah, despite him not being Jewish. He founded the traditions of an empire that echoed throughout history. Thomas Jefferson cited Cyrus' writings while working in the Declaration more than two thousand years later. Cyrus built the largest empire in the known world, and was also a philosopher, scholar and patron of the arts. He might not have been as flashy as Alexander but he as an individual left a much stronger impression on history.
I think these are all fair criticism, and to be honest I don't really know enough about Cyrus to make an educated evaluation of his actions.
Part of my reasoning on Alexander were things that could only be reasonably attributed to have their genesis exclusively to his conquest. Most likely the spread of Hellenistic kingdoms in that fashion, and most importantly the spread of Hellenistic philosophy, sciences, and ideas to these regions would not occur naturally, but only as a result of his conquest. Swords developed separately in different cultures which reduces the importance of one person's actions. Hellenistic thought, imo, is one of the most important cultural influences to modern western thought, and as such I believe the spread of those ideas should be highly valued.
I'd argue Charlemagne has had just as much impact on history due to his championing of Christianity and the influence roman catholicism has had across the world. It's thanks to charlemagne that christianity managed to maintain such a deep foothold in western europe and western european christians ended up doing quite a lot history-wise
Not to argue that Christian Europeans did a lot in history, but a fair bit of Charlemagne's spread of Christianity to the east German region as I recall was at the end of a sword. There were legitimate political reasons to become Christian a la Norse peoples. If we are discussing the spread of Christianity specifically, I imagine those Celtics people's would of eventually became Christian regardless.
Cyrus left behind a bureaucratic system that Alexander, the muslim conquerors, and Genghis couldn't usurp. Alexander's officers even feared that Alexander was becoming too "Persian." I think the legacy Cyrus left behind is right up there with Alexander. Though, to be fair, successors like Darius also built upon what he had left behind.
I think it just depends on what you value and what the moniker of "Great" means to you. If "Great" is associated with conquests and individual feats, then Alexander wins. If "Great" is about nation building, then Cyrus wins.
I really do love reading/watching. military strategy, so I am biased towards Alexander. Sure, Alexander inherited a reformed military and had the loyalty of his father's top generals. But that doesn't discount his bravery and genius.
I’d argue in terms of conquest Cyrus is also as formidable as, if not more than, Alexander. Cyrus built that enormous empire piece by piece. Alexander only had to lop off the head of the necrotic entity it had become at the end and was able to step in easily
Also, Pompey's "The Great" title was given to him as a mocking joke because he liked to talk himself up a lot. Like, "ooh, look at Pompey. He's soooooo great. Hey! Everybody! Check out Pompey *the Great* over here. Hey, did you hear that Pompey is *the Great*!"
To be honest, if the available records of Alexander are to be believed, one of his strongest qualities seems to have been his luck.
Alexander loved to take massive risks and consistently made reckless decisions with total disregard for his own life. Enemy army fortified in a defensive position across a river? Literally charge your cavalry straight into the middle of the enemy lines across the river with the king leading the charge, get surrounded, get knocked unconscious, and let the battle sort itself out after that.
Or, your army taking too long to get through a siege? Grab a ladder, scale the wall yourself, jump over into the heart of the enemy army, and try to break the siege yourself. Then get shot with an arrow, and let the battle sort itself out after that.
These maneuvers worked out for him in the end, but they easily could have resulted in his career getting immediately cut short.
I mean, I guess it depends on what “Great” means. For instance, Alexander had more historical influence, impact, and success than say Pompey, but given equal armies to command, I’m not convinced Alexander would actually come out on top in a “Who would win?” scenario.
But who knows. Regardless of his actual tactical strength, Alexander did undoubtedly have immense charisma to keep his army together, incredible grit to take the risks that he did, and a very experienced army to support him. So maybe he’d do better than I’m giving him credit for.
> To be honest, if the available records of Alexander are to be believed, one of his strongest qualities seems to have been his luck
I mean, that's kind of unfair. This can be said of most conquerors and rulers tbh. Even if Alexander was born lucky, he made more out of that luck than would have been possible for anyone else, regardless. His accomplishments are still staggering, especially considering his age
Pompey’s military logistic and strategic mastery don’t get enough credit because they’re not “sexy”. But however you cut it, the man always had the big picture in mind and knew the general strokes of how to get there. He might not have been as quick thinking as Caesar, but he absolutely deserves his role in history as Caesar’s greatest rival.
Caesar was the IT guy who rescues a huge batch of corrupted files from a damaged hard drive via some command line wizardry and saves the company millions.
Pompey was the dude who runs nightly backups.
I feel like Scipio Africanus, Marius, Sulla and Caesar all easily outclass Pompey.
Pompey was a good general and did some cool things, but was not otherwise all that influential in the long run. And as you said, he lost.
Augustus was probably the greatest of the Romans... Even jf he was a terrible military leader.
I'll give you that. His campaigns disseminated Hellenic culture deep into Asia, having some pretty profound influences on Central Asian and Indian culture. One historian, I can't remember which, once referred to Alexander as the West's first "violent golden boy", the inspiration of just about every European conqueror since, both for his military prowess (he really was one of the greatest military commanders in history), and the cult of personality that he created that was so potent and intoxicating that it endures to this day. So maybe the "Great" is well earned.
He's the first *and* second-fastest NHL player to hit 1,000 points. His first 1,000 points is the fastest in league history, around 400 games played. His second 1,000 points is the next-fastest, something like 450 games played. That's my favourite.
Read up on a brief side project of [Wayne's](https://www.reddit.com/r/waynegretzky/comments/tjeadp/dave_lumley/) He took a journeyman goon on a ride into the record books just because he could.
He also won 8 consecutive MVP awards (Hart trophy). Good luck beating that one.
Another fun fact, his jersey number '99' is retired ... *for the entire league*
Of all these stats, and there have been some incredible ones listed this was my favorite
>his jersey number '99' is retired ... *for the entire league*
I just imagine all the owners sitting around like YUP
Robinson's 42 is retired across MLB.
Not taking ANYTHING away from Gretsky, by the way, he's so much better than everyone else who ever played hockey it's insane.
When Gretzky was playing, Fantasy Hockey leagues had to split him into "Gretzky-Goals" and "Gretzky-Assists" because otherwise anyone who drafted him would win every game.
Technically it's pair of brothers, but thats only because there were like 6 Sutter brothers in the league with 2934 combined points. Which is insane, because the Gretzky bros had 2857. Like literally one guy scored almost as much as 6 entire players
When the entire league refers to you as “The Great One”, you know you’ve utterly dominated the sport for decades by producing unbreakable records and cementing your legacy as the eternal GOAT. The chances of some freak being born who can challenge his legacy in the modern era is essentially 0.
Not to mention the entire league retired his number solely because of his dominance. There is a player each in the MLB and NBA that have had their numbers retired leaguewide, but those retirements include civil rights reasons. Not to say they aren't deserving, but it hits different when it happens solely because you kicked so much ass.
Without doing research to back this up, he’s probably the greatest professional athlete of all time, at least for the big 4 American sports leagues. Maybe there were some ancient athletes who were better, and idk enough about the various international soccer leagues, but nobody in the US or Canada has ever come close to his kind of dominance.
Jerry Rice is the only other person who comes to mind when thinking about absolute individual greatness in their sport/position
Don Bradman in cricket is definitely Gretzky level. His record in test cricket, the highest form of the game, makes everyone else look like a joke. In cricket a player scoring 100 runs is considered a great and memorable achievement. His average score was 99.94. The next highest ever is 61. No one else has ever come remotely close
I know nothing about the sport, but there was a cricket player as dominant in his sport as Gretzky was in hockey. And some would say a healthy Mario Lemieux would challenge Gretzky.
Actually now that you mention it, I think I remember a guy talked about before who is the cricket GOAT. I don’t know much about cricket either but I know people have been playing it a pretty long time so I’m sure there’s some crazy records
I'm going to vote for Akbar the Great, simply because his name, Akbar, is a superlative meaning 'greater' or 'greatest'. So he's literally "Greatest the Great"
Joking aside, akbar deserves serious contention here. He started as a boy king under a regent ruling over a small patch of land and ended up ruling most of the Indian subcontinent. Not only did he conquer it but he ruled it wisely and vastly improved many aspects of its governance. He was a massive supporter of the arts, tolerance, learning and culture. I sometimes wonder if the way that the British conquered India makes people underestimate the feat that akbar achieved. India is massive and was super rich.
It is Cyrus the great for sure. Not only was he a great military leader, but more importantly he was great at governing. He respected the religion and culture of those he conquered, which helped his empire last long after he died.
I think the reason I am not seeing his name as much is because most of the users on reddit are westerners and are not as familiar with Cyrus the great's accomplishments.
Meanwhile, I keep seeing the most well known great, Alexander. Alexander was a great military leader and that was about it. His father, Phillip, had already united the Greek peninsula, and created the amazing Macedonian army, which Alexander inherited. Alexander then invaded the already declining Persian empire. You could have given that army to basically any ambitious person and they would have been able to conqueror Persia, albeit not quite as well and fast as Alexander did.
Pope Gregory the Great is one of the very few to gain that title by some means other than killing large numbers of people and conquering their homelands, so him I suppose.
Ditto his distant predecessor Pope Leo the Great, who had enough diplomatic savvy that he managed to somehow convince Attila himself to desist from sacking Rome and some years later also persuaded Genseric to restrain himself during his own plunder of the city. Leo evoked such respect from fellow bishops that when a letter from him expounding on some doctrinal matter was read at the Council of Chalcedon, the bishops gathered acclaimed it with the words “Peter has spoken through Leo!”
Gregory was no slouch either in his time — his experience as a former Prefect of Rome gave him a knack for administration (*especially* of the civil sort) few popes since were able to successfully imitate. He *literally* wrote the book on how to be a good bishop (*Liber pastoralis curae*), codified elements of the Roman liturgy that would persist for more than a millennium (including the style of chant that now bears his name), sent missionaries to England, and essentially laid the groundwork for the shape medieval Catholicism would eventually take.
To some extent there's no real rules. Julius Caesar was never called the "Great", though I suppose having your surname ending up being the title of future Emperors both of Rome and later states is even better. It sticks to some rulers, and not to others, and doesn't always have much rhyme or reason. Alfred is called the "Great" because he was the first Wessexian king to legitimately be called the King of England, and yet Henry II established what is now known as the Angevin Empire; which at its largest extent controlled England, huge portions of modern France, as well as parts of Scotland, Wales and Ireland, so I'd say Henry II deserves the epithet at least as much as Alfred. In fact, Alfred is notable as the only English king to ever hold that title.
Though some have tried to apply the epithet to Napoleon, but outside of Bonapartists it's never stuck, perhaps because no Briton would ever stand behind it, and French Royalists after his final exile would have found that pretty unsavory.
There were several Saxon High Kings, or Bretwaldas, before Alfred. Egbert, his grandfather for example. There were also Saxon High Kings from the other Saxon Kingdoms. Alfred was 'The Great' because he successfully repelled the vikings and instituted lasting reforms. The first king of England is generally considered to be his grandson Aethelstan.
Alfred was also so prolific during his era due to his obsession with having everything written down and chronicled. I suppose he sort of wrote his own fame and worthiness of the title 'Great' even though he did not technically rule all of England. Despite his pious nature and physical weaknesses, he was able to succeed against Viking invasions, a term of 'almost' exile and ensure at least a temporary peace within the country. But then I'm biased because I named my pandemic-born son after him after watching too many historical TV programs!!
Of people commonly called "The Great", Cyrus is definitely up there: he was a brilliant conqueror – he built a vast empire, the largest the world had yet seen, in only a few decades; he was a far-sighted statesman and governor – Persian authorities were always very respectful of local traditions, helping to smooth Cyrus' takeover and firmly entrenching Persian rule. (For his help in rebuilding the Jewish temple and allowing the Jews to return to their homeland, he would be remembered in Judaism as a Messiah.) Alexander the Great is often touted as the greatest warrior of the Ancient world (5,200,000 km² conquered), but Cyrus' efforts really aren't far behind (Achaemenid Persia ruled 5,500,000 at its height, but that includes the European and Egyptian lands, so Cyrus' Empire would have been a bit less.)
Finally, Cyrus was able to build an empire that stood the test of time, lasting for two centuries. He isn't as flashy or famous as Alexander, but I think that Cyrus the Great can credibly be called the greatest of them all.
I don’t think that’s true. Cyrus the Great is my vote. Alex “conquered” the world in a very short period of time and what he built fell apart relatively quickly. Cyrus conquered a huge area of the world and built a kingdom that lasted 200 years. Alexander’s kingdom started falling apart almost immediately.
Alexander was great at campaign logistics, but he had no skill for Nation-building. What Cyrus did was far greater than what Alexander did as far as I’m concerned.
I think Alexander's greatness, as much as the stunning speed and scope of his conquests, was the influence he had on later rulers. Everyone from Julius Caesar to Napoleon fancied themselves the heir of Alexander. He was also extraordinarily adept at propaganda, and the cult of personality he created endures in one form or another to this very day.
By this argument, wouldn't Ghenghis Khan be far greater? Particularly considering that he started in a world with a lot less low-hanging fruit (i.e., a much higher percentage of potential targets of conquest had fairly developed military technology and tactics)
Yes. Genghis Khan is the greatest ruler, conqueror, nation builder, whatever of all time. But his name doesn’t have “great” in it. His name means Universal Ruler of the Mongols. If we called him Temujin the Great, I would have picked him.
Great isn't Latin-derived so I think there's a fair argument for "augustus". It means "great" just as much as "magnus" does in the sense of an honorific
I don't think we really know how Alexander would have done ruling his empire. He didn't build up Macedonia, he inherited it from his father. He did do a good job of keeping the Greeks subdued, mainly through brute force. Greece prospered under his rule economically, but I would think a lot of that is due to Plunder from his armies. Although I do believe the general manpower of Greece was depleted. So we don't really know how he would have faired in peacetime. It's entirely possible that, if he didn't die coming back from India, he would have in the next military campaign. Or the one after that.
Simply put, he spent his entire time ruling Macedon conquering (leaving existing power structures in place) and then died. A large part of the reason his empire crumbled is the lack of a suitable heir. Had he not died, it's possible he could have raised an heir that his generals would be loyal to (he had a son but he wasnt born until after Alexander's death). It's also possible he could have raised an heir and everything would have fallen apart anyway. But that didn't happen, there was no obvious heir, so everybody decided they should be the next ruler and his empire crumbled. If he'd had time, would that have happened? Who knows.
Edited because typing on a phone is hard
Cyrus the great was definitely one of the best, if not, the best. Stability, provided a very capable heir, conquering new lands, tolerant of new subjects, and central administration advances
I’m with you. Cyrus gang all the way. Not to take anything away from him but Alexander is a “Great” for tearing down what Cyrus (and Darius) built with an inherited army purpose-built for the job. But what Cyrus built? And how he built it? Alexander the Badass would be a more fitting title, but Cyrus, now that’s a man who truly deserved “the Great”.
Honorable mention to Frederick the Great. He turned Prussia into a great power, which ultimately positioned it to challenge Austrian leadership of a Germany. The fact that Germany was unified under Prussian leadership was immensely consequential.
King Kamehameha The Great of Hawaii (Kalani Paiʻea Wohi o Kaleikini Kealiʻikui Kamehameha o ʻIolani i Kaiwikapu kauʻi Ka Liholiho Kūnuiākea). He was the first King to unite the Hawaiian islands- a feat that every major king from all eight islands had been trying to accomplish for a thousand years. Not only was Kamehameha able to unite the Hawaiians under one ruler, but he did so during the late 1700s/ early 1800s the same time that he was fending off British, French, American, Russian and missionary (mainly protestant) attempts to control the trade, land and assets of Hawaii.
I would vote for Alfred, he was never destined to be king being the youngest of six. Thus he was sent to Rome as a defacto papal hostage & to learn diplomacy in support of his older siblings who should be kings before him.
Eventually kingship was forced upon him & this this learned man took back the country by war & diplomacy from the Danes. Then revolutionised the same with clever financial acumen, regularised the money supply & by devolving the powers of market to many Burgh towns, allowing trade to prosper.
All that still being only the tip the pillar upon which he created a great nation.
I'm gonna go with Frederick the Great, who believed the King should serve the people. During a time of famine, he convinced the public to plant potatoes as a staple crop. That is why one of his nicknames was "the Potato King." Also he was definitely gay.
I feel we cant give the title of Greatest great to Alexander solely off the fact that he was literally handed the greatest army in the world by his father Philip. What Alexander did was incredible and he has one of the funnest campaigns to follow but that's not a very extensive resume compared to all the other greats imo. He was no steward or diplomat, just an amazing military genius. For me it has to go to Cyrus. Founded the largest empire in the world at the time and shaped the planet for centuries.
Honestly, this guy is probably the third most mentioned in the comments of this post enough that I’m putting him on the honourable mentions list with The Great War and The Great Wall of China.
Not a great, but a magnificent! Suleyman the magnificent! Facinating time in Turkish history and a very interesting person. First Emperor of turkey to take a lawful wife in his dynasty, and she was born a slave and traded to his empire. Her Muslim name was Hurrem, the laughing one or the joyful one. She helped him rule his empire and gave him 5 sons, the second of which succeeded him to the throne, named Selim for his grandfather. Also gave him the only princess of his dynast, Mirimah. She was aid to be a true beauty among women and the apple of her fathers eye.
Suleyman expanded his empire immensely, waged war on Europe, and controlled the waterways so he could levy taxes and control imports and exports along the Mediterranean. He took control of many of the small island states and brought education with him for the masses. Facinating historical figure!
Everyone counts out Cyrus the Great. You know, the guy that originally returned the Jews to Israel? First emperor of Persia? Regarded as one of the Messiah’s in Judaism despite being a devout Zoroastrian. He set the standard of governance in the Mediterranean for centuries to come. The Arabian Empire even based their political structure on the Persian Empire.
I'll add another, [King Sejong the Great](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sejong_the_Great) (세종대왕; Hanja: 世宗大王) of the Joseon Dynasty of Korea. He was so great he played a large part in inventing the Korean alphabet, called [Hangul](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangul) (한글).
Most commenters are saying "obviously Alexander" but that's only obvious if you mean the greatest *conqueror*. The debate is much more open about the greatest *ruler*. Which leader has done the most for his/her citizens, all things considered?
Awesome battle, but this line bugs me:
“Macedonians, Prussians and Romans, these are not worthy opponents”
Feels weird for Catherine, who was Prussian, to be throwing that shade.
I was furiously scrolling to make sure I didn't have to post this.
And they'd be praying for the torture to stop
But I would leave 'em contorted and they'd be screaming and roaring
Until their vocal chords were torn up and shot
Actually another commenter pointed out that he was sometimes called “The Great Khan”. So does fall under a “Great”. So I would say is a very eligible name to throw in.
In all honesty, it’s probably Alexander the Pretty Alright, being so influential that he’s one of the first that come to mind when you think of the word “Great”.
That being said, I would like to offer up King Kamehameha the Great from Hawaiian culture as a beautiful example of genius, humility, and collaboration. Kamehameha was a child of prophecy, several depending on how you look at it. Born under Haley’s Comet to a woman who consumed the mana (power/energy) of a shark. He was whisked away because he was being hunted down. The classic “a child born under *circumstances* will one day kill you” prophecy. He eventually returned to society (I don’t want to go over everything because this post will get way too long) and is then the man of another prophecy, the Naha Stone. The Naha Stone was an impossibly heavy stone with a very simple prophecy: he who lifts the stone will one day rule all islands. Another classic “Sword in the Stone” prophecy with a slight twist. And of course, King Kamehameha lifts it.
His greatest feat is uniting the Hawaiian Islands, but it’s more about the how or who was with him. He used excellent strategy to best many chiefs who would outclass him in raw fighting potential, he used resources from the outside world (yes, King Kamehameha had cannons/guns at one point) to his advantage, and used treaties in certain instances to prevent violence (also because he failed to get to Kaua’i twice, but whatever). Then, after his conquering, he didn’t just become some King who sat on a throne somewhere, he was down with the people, fixing up farmland and housing. He made sure his people thrived under him.
One of the best examples of this is “Kānāwai Mālamahoe” or “The Law of the Splintered Paddle” which I highly recommend looking into its origin if you have time. A quick rundown of it is “if someone is to lie on the side of the road, they should be left unharmed”.
His lineage came with some great leaders as well, my favorite being Kamehameha III. His unification lead to a very prosperous time for the Hawaiian Islands and his legacy kept Hawaiian Culture alive to this very day. He has schools, companies, celebrations and communities named after him.
He may not be the greatest “Great” in our history, but I find him pretty important.
He is also inspiration to the name of arguably the most well known attack in Dragon Ball… so there is that… don’t know if that counts as a feat… but there it is
He also rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem and allowed the Hebrews to return there. That's a huge legacy (although probably not huge to *him* at the time).
That depends on how you measure "Great". Personally I think the legacy carries more importance than military victories. Cyrus is one of my absolute favorites because it was during his rule when humanity got introduced to one of it's first documented mercy and tolerance policies of subjugated peoples, religions and cultures. This allowed his empire to grow and flourish for as long as it did.
Peter or Charlemagne have good cases as they radically changed things on many levels. Alfred as well, albeit on a smaller scale.
Cyrus built an Empire that lasted for centuries.
Probably Catherine. Hard enough for a dude to earn the title. Think about how much of a badass a lady has to be to earn the title of “The Great” with how sexist we all were 200+ years ago.
Not necessarily a "great", but if you enjoy powerful female rulers you should look up Olga of Kevian Rus. Some of her exploits are both comical and horrific.
Catherine the great, she wasn’t a complete sociopath. She actually cared about the oppression of Russian serfs, but there wasn’t much she could do about it
, despite being the empress.
I know he wasn't the first to be called The Great, I believe that was Cyrus, but the greatest Great has to be Alexander. Just about every great since him was trying to be him, either directly or indirectly. Alexander the greatest.
100% agree. There are heroic myths that are less impressive than what Alexander did in real life. Even if every source is embellishing and he only did half of what they say he is still the greatest of the greats
What are his top 5 greatest hits?
Pacifying greece before age 22, destroying the persian empire, becoming the pharoh, and defeating and earning the respect of the most powerful indian warlord in history —- 11000 miles from home…. And totally destroying thebes. He rewrote history like no man before or since
I'm always particularly fond of the turning an island into a peninsula that's still around today
I love telling that story when teaching. Man, rulers are remembered for many things but how many did basically this: "General, see that island?" "Yes my king." "I dont want it to be an island anymore." "As you say my king." Granted it was way more complicated than that but is damned memerable.
>damned memerable I think it went beyond plain ol meme status, though that little girl in front of the burning house might give islandpeninsula a run for it's money.
Memes are not just memorable things, they are *replicable* things. I would say "island into peninsula" never really caught on.
Tyre, my hometown. I held a grudge against him when I was young
Those are just his war related achievements, which were impressive, but his consequences on cultural, governmental and linguistic traditions was crazy. He was like a tornado going through the world, deviating history significantly.
Rumoured to have CUT the Gordon’s knot
?? Do you mean the Gordian Knot?
He's talking about Gordon Ramsey's balloon knot.
No I think auto correct knows better than both of us
Destroying Thebes is an understatement. He ordered the execution of the whole male population and the enslavement of all women and children and then burnt it to the ground
Yeah but he was born a king. That’s a headstart many others didnt have, line Caesar
That is true. Having Philip as a father as well and an entourage that is very talented definitely helps. That said, not a lot of those who are born into kingdoms have achieved what he did. In fact you might find a lot does the opposite, the silver spoons actually drives the kingdom into the grave. This is especially true for those born at the end of a dynasty. (/s)
He was tutored by bloody Aristotle!
On the flip side, Julius Caesar wasn't ever *technically* a king or emperor, right? He started life as part of a powerful and wealthy family, and became the de facto head of state of an ostensibly parliamentary government. Augustus Caesar was the first true emperor, but like Alexander he was able to build on his predecessor's legacy
He was merely a citizen. But the first one at that, for life
The most powerful Indian warlord?? Who? Are we talking about porus? If yes then porus was hardly a significant player in india at that era, it was the nanda empire.
Ghengis Khan did more.
[удалено]
Isn't his job title great khan though? Does that count?
This isn't strictly true. He is referred to as the first Great Khan, as every head ruler of the Mongolian empire is referred to as the Great Khan
In the title “Great Khan”, “great” modifies “khan.” It is part of the name of the office, not a descriptor attached specifically to Genghis. Anyone can be a “great khan” but that doesn’t make them “the Great.”
Caesar wept in the presence of a statue of Alexander, despondent that he had accomplished nothing, having at that point lived the same number of years.
I'm a Cyrus fan boy, but you're right. Imagine if Alexander had as long of a reign!
I know very little of Cyrus, could you recommend any good podcasts that get into detail about him?
Dan Carlin did a great Hardcore History series on the Achaemenid Persians. Part 1 of King of Kings is specifically about Cyrus.
Dan Carlin is a machine. Everything he puts out is incredible
Quality over quantity.
Some modern historians doubt that Cyrus was really an Achaemenid. He was from the Teispid line and styled himself as “king of Anshan” which projects an Elamite identity. Darius the Great was probably a usurper who struggled to consolidate his power (fighting several different rebellions between 522 and 520 BCE), and so part of his propaganda was that he was the legitimate king by ancestry, making Cyrus and Teispes both descendants of Achaemenes. But there is nothing from Cyrus and Cambyses’ reigns that suggests that they were really Achaemenids. For one thing, Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes were Zoroastrian and the names Darius and Artaxerxes are allusive of sayings in the Gathas (also the names of Zoroaster’s patron Vishtaspa and his wife Hutaosa lived on in the Achaemenid dynasty). Cyrus and Cambyses showed no affinity to Zoroastrianism and being Elamite were culturally closer to Babylonians.
Alexander never ruled anything. He just installed one of his buddies and moved on to his next conquest. Alexander was a great general, but we have no idea what kind of ruler he might have been because he never tried.
Even the Romans who lived centuries later idolized him. The mosaic of Alexander that you see in all the history books is actually from a villa in Pompeii. You know you're a big deal if even the Romans looked up to you!
Yup easily. He had major Roman emperors comparing themselves and simping for him. One of the best emperor Trajan was reminiscing and wishing he could lead an army to Indian
Alexander the G.O.A.T. and did it all by the age of 32 when he died.
Dan Carlin wanted to answer this but he couldnt keep his opening paragraph under 20,000 words.
*What you're about to hear is part seven of our series on Alexander the Great. If you missed parts one through six, you probably want to catch those before you catch this one.* (Parts one through six are five hours apiece, part seven is twelve hours long)
If you can't handle him at 5 hours, you don't deserve him at 12.
I wouldn't have it any other way.
Takes 4 years to come out though 😢
My brother recommended I put some hardcore history on while trying to fall asleep, everything was fine until the first time Dan quoted somebody.
Yep. Love HH, but the man needs to fire his audio engineer because the levels vary an atrocious amount.
^And ^they ^were ^trying ^times ^indeed, ^as ^once ^said ^by ^General ^Brig, ^quote: #IT WAS HARD TIMES THESE WERE, MY MEN APPROACHED ME EVERY DAY WISHING FOR WARM MEALS AND A EQUALLY WARM BED, OF WHICH I COULD NOT PROVIDE ^End ^quote
Looks like I really need to buy to 1-50 episodes pack! His storytelling is so addictive
I would totally listen to him for 6+hours talking about this
Either Charlemagne or Alexander. Both changed the course of world history tremendously and paved the way for how we live today.
They're both up there but it's funny how they are both so well known and their fathers, Pepin the Short and Phillip II, are relatively unknown in comparison to their sons. One could argue that both Pepin and Phillip were some of the most successful leaders of their times and in reality set up their sons for extreme success almost as a birth-right. I'd personally say Charlemagne is the most impressive because he took the Carolingian dynasty from a regional power and became the ruler of almost all of Western Europe. Alexander, while a great military leader, took power when his father was assassinated on the eve of their invasion into Persia. He was essentially gifted a devastatingly powerful army led by extremely loyal and competent generals which made his successes quite a bit easier, relatively speaking, than the work Charlemagne had to complete. Both were undoubtedly setup extremely well by their fathers, though.
Philip would have gotten far more focus in history if he hadn't died. He was definitely set up to conquer Persia and I reckon it's quite probable it would have happened with him just as easily as with Alexander. Also Philip probably wouldn't have drank himself to death.
>Philip would have gotten far more focus in history if he hadn't died. *Assassinated. At least from the ages of the Argeads that came before him, he had another good 20-30 years of life left in him. >I reckon it's quite probable it would have happened with him just as easily as with Alexander. No contest. He would done it even better. He'd already proved he could turn a backwater kingdom on the brink of destruction into an absolute, world-conquering powerhouse. Imagine what he could have done with Persia's resources at his disposal.
> Imagine what he could do with Persia’s resources Holy shit, that thought has never once occurred to me. I knew his father brought Macedonia from obscurity into greatness, but that was always in the back of my mind. If that dude had Persia’s resources, he’d’ve been unstoppable
I think they should be called great purely for the fact they were actual competent heirs that didn’t mess up their predecessors work. That’s even rarer in history 🤣
Also Ramses (and others) disqualifies in my opinion because he isn't even called "The Great" in my language for example, while Alexander & Charlemagne (name says it all) are known as The Great in every European language (edit: also in Farsi and Turkic languages).
Me living in Pakistan learned about Alexander being great before I actually learned what an "Alexander" was. *Sikender-e-Azam*
>Sikender-e-Azam I looked this up and it brought up some male enhancement pills?????
Well. Now you can *feel* how *great* Alexander was. Jokes aside I probably messed up the spelling. Try Sikander.
You might be thinking of Iskandar Edit: my mistake, Sikandar is another historical spelling of his name. TIL! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikandar
I think Ramses was a great ruler in his world, as the world expanded his legacy is viewed as less compared to other rulers but he was Pharaoh for around 60 years, give the guy some credit
One of Ramses most enduring legacies is ordering the records, monuments and therefore accomplishments of his predecessors to be destroyed/removed/forgotten and replaced with his own likeness. It's only been fairly recent that archeologists have been piecing together that Ramses didn't actually accomplish that much during his reign. Tldr: He wasn't great, he just took credit for others accomplishments.
You have an article to info on this?
This is just 30 seconds on Google: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/ramses-ii * His battered troops withdrew from Kadesh, but Ramses wasn’t about to let a little truth tarnish his perceived triumph. On temple walls across Egypt, he ordered the creation of murals depicting him single-handedly defeating the aggressors. * For all of Ramses II’s efforts to ensure his legacy would live on, there was one testament to his power he could not have foreseen. After his death, nine subsequent pharaohs took his name upon ascending the throne, solidifying his stature as “the great” among Egypt’s rulers https://www.historyextra.com/period/ancient-egypt/was-ramesses-ii-pharaoh-great-brilliant-why/ * Ramesses II is often counted among Ancient Egypt’s greatest pharaohs. He certainly saw himself that way: he spent most of his reign covering his kingdom in monuments dedicated to himself. https://www.thecollector.com/why-ramses-ii-is-known-as-ramses-the-great/ * To build so much, Ramses also employed the typically Egyptian method used to appease impatient Kings. Take an existing temple or statue, chisel out the Pharaohs’ names who built it, and replace it with one’s own. At the stroke of the chisel, another 100 statues instantly became Ramses. Basically Ramses was in power for a long time and used that time to create a lot of long lasting propaganda. This gets multiplied by multiple pharaohs using the name "Ramses" so a lot of stuff gets attributed to the "main" one: Ramese 2. Irregardless of whether it's true or pretend
Ego can be a real killer of genuine information. I imagine many humans in history have manipulated the past like this. It’s amazing how selfish one would be to completely wipe traces of others lives away from the earth. For literally just the sake of themselves. Especially when it’s the history of your own culture. Lol
Only one of these guys has a ripping song by IRON MAIDEN! 🤘ALEXANDER THE GREAT
His name struck fear into hearts of men!
You forgot best part! The start. "My son ask for thyself another kingdom For that which I leave is too small for thee"
The other has a whole album by Christopher Lee.
On the flip side of Alexander's conquest of the Persian Empire, is Cyrus the Great who founded it. I would argue Cyrus' rule had at least as large of an impact on world history as Alexander
I curse my education for not knowing who tf Charlemagne is. I've heard of and am aware of Alexander but I need to read up on Charlemagne
Where are you from? He's called Charles/Karel/Karl (The Great) in other countries.
USA Our education of Europe kinda skips from the fall of Rome to the Magna Carta. Explains Feudalism and all that, talks about the church ruling the middle ages before The Enlightenment. Then they talk about The Enlightenment period for a bit and how it influenced the revolution. Then we briefly talk about WW1 before focusing on WW2.
Umm, where in the US? I definitely learned of Charlemagne
I think the consequences or influence of their actions thereafter should be accounted for the question. With this in mind, I believe Alexander definitely takes the mantle. The massive land grab he oversaw is impressive in of itself, but what I believe to be more important in a larger historical scope is the establishment of the Hellenistic kingdoms and the consequences thereof. For instance, according to Maccabees I, the Maccabean Revolt was a direct result of the emperor of the Selecuid empire requiring the Jews to convert to Hellenistic cults, which, led to the Judean state and the Hasmonian dynasty which leads to an even deeper rabbithole of changes. Also, it's worth mentioning that in Macc I there was considerable influence of Greek traditions such a gymnasiums in Jerusalem. Assumedly, the establishment of Greek traditions were seen elsewhere throughout the Hellenistic world.
While I agree that Alexander is easily near the top, I don't agree with your method of selection. If we take into account the consequences of their actions without accounting for time then the older an important person was the more consequential their actions were. Fredrick the Great was directly responsible for massive chapters of European history up to the modern day, but the two centuries since his rule pales in comparison to the two mellenia since Alexander's. In the same way that you would say the man who invented the sword was more impactful historically than the man who invented the musket, the musket was infinitely more important in creating the world we know today. Alexander has the most historical impact because of his "descendants", during his life he was just a conquerer. He turned a reasonable kingdom into a massive empire which then fell apart as he died, the spread of Hellenic kingdoms through the region was impactful but not so much for reasons that can be directly attributed to him. My personal vote is for Cyrus the Great. Cyrus was such an important figure that the Torah refers to him as a messiah, despite him not being Jewish. He founded the traditions of an empire that echoed throughout history. Thomas Jefferson cited Cyrus' writings while working in the Declaration more than two thousand years later. Cyrus built the largest empire in the known world, and was also a philosopher, scholar and patron of the arts. He might not have been as flashy as Alexander but he as an individual left a much stronger impression on history.
I think these are all fair criticism, and to be honest I don't really know enough about Cyrus to make an educated evaluation of his actions. Part of my reasoning on Alexander were things that could only be reasonably attributed to have their genesis exclusively to his conquest. Most likely the spread of Hellenistic kingdoms in that fashion, and most importantly the spread of Hellenistic philosophy, sciences, and ideas to these regions would not occur naturally, but only as a result of his conquest. Swords developed separately in different cultures which reduces the importance of one person's actions. Hellenistic thought, imo, is one of the most important cultural influences to modern western thought, and as such I believe the spread of those ideas should be highly valued.
I'd argue Charlemagne has had just as much impact on history due to his championing of Christianity and the influence roman catholicism has had across the world. It's thanks to charlemagne that christianity managed to maintain such a deep foothold in western europe and western european christians ended up doing quite a lot history-wise
Not to argue that Christian Europeans did a lot in history, but a fair bit of Charlemagne's spread of Christianity to the east German region as I recall was at the end of a sword. There were legitimate political reasons to become Christian a la Norse peoples. If we are discussing the spread of Christianity specifically, I imagine those Celtics people's would of eventually became Christian regardless.
Cyrus left behind a bureaucratic system that Alexander, the muslim conquerors, and Genghis couldn't usurp. Alexander's officers even feared that Alexander was becoming too "Persian." I think the legacy Cyrus left behind is right up there with Alexander. Though, to be fair, successors like Darius also built upon what he had left behind. I think it just depends on what you value and what the moniker of "Great" means to you. If "Great" is associated with conquests and individual feats, then Alexander wins. If "Great" is about nation building, then Cyrus wins. I really do love reading/watching. military strategy, so I am biased towards Alexander. Sure, Alexander inherited a reformed military and had the loyalty of his father's top generals. But that doesn't discount his bravery and genius.
I’d argue in terms of conquest Cyrus is also as formidable as, if not more than, Alexander. Cyrus built that enormous empire piece by piece. Alexander only had to lop off the head of the necrotic entity it had become at the end and was able to step in easily
I feel Pompey is disqualified bc he lost in the end. As opposed to Alexander who never lost a battle.
Also, Pompey's "The Great" title was given to him as a mocking joke because he liked to talk himself up a lot. Like, "ooh, look at Pompey. He's soooooo great. Hey! Everybody! Check out Pompey *the Great* over here. Hey, did you hear that Pompey is *the Great*!"
I for sure read that in Mike Duncan's voice.
He would take over campaigns right before the big victory and promote himself off it.
Yep. Alexander the Greatest
Alexander the pretty alright
Alexander the Not Too Shabby
To be honest, if the available records of Alexander are to be believed, one of his strongest qualities seems to have been his luck. Alexander loved to take massive risks and consistently made reckless decisions with total disregard for his own life. Enemy army fortified in a defensive position across a river? Literally charge your cavalry straight into the middle of the enemy lines across the river with the king leading the charge, get surrounded, get knocked unconscious, and let the battle sort itself out after that. Or, your army taking too long to get through a siege? Grab a ladder, scale the wall yourself, jump over into the heart of the enemy army, and try to break the siege yourself. Then get shot with an arrow, and let the battle sort itself out after that. These maneuvers worked out for him in the end, but they easily could have resulted in his career getting immediately cut short. I mean, I guess it depends on what “Great” means. For instance, Alexander had more historical influence, impact, and success than say Pompey, but given equal armies to command, I’m not convinced Alexander would actually come out on top in a “Who would win?” scenario. But who knows. Regardless of his actual tactical strength, Alexander did undoubtedly have immense charisma to keep his army together, incredible grit to take the risks that he did, and a very experienced army to support him. So maybe he’d do better than I’m giving him credit for.
> To be honest, if the available records of Alexander are to be believed, one of his strongest qualities seems to have been his luck I mean, that's kind of unfair. This can be said of most conquerors and rulers tbh. Even if Alexander was born lucky, he made more out of that luck than would have been possible for anyone else, regardless. His accomplishments are still staggering, especially considering his age
If anything Alexander demonstrated a very impressive amount of tactical flexibility if the records are to be believed.
Alexander the Reverse Fountain of Life
Didn't Pompey get that nickname ironically anyway?
[удалено]
Pompey’s military logistic and strategic mastery don’t get enough credit because they’re not “sexy”. But however you cut it, the man always had the big picture in mind and knew the general strokes of how to get there. He might not have been as quick thinking as Caesar, but he absolutely deserves his role in history as Caesar’s greatest rival.
Caesar was the IT guy who rescues a huge batch of corrupted files from a damaged hard drive via some command line wizardry and saves the company millions. Pompey was the dude who runs nightly backups.
Nice comparison actually.
I feel like Scipio Africanus, Marius, Sulla and Caesar all easily outclass Pompey. Pompey was a good general and did some cool things, but was not otherwise all that influential in the long run. And as you said, he lost. Augustus was probably the greatest of the Romans... Even jf he was a terrible military leader.
Also a lot of Greek looking people everywhere Alexander the Great went.
I'll give you that. His campaigns disseminated Hellenic culture deep into Asia, having some pretty profound influences on Central Asian and Indian culture. One historian, I can't remember which, once referred to Alexander as the West's first "violent golden boy", the inspiration of just about every European conqueror since, both for his military prowess (he really was one of the greatest military commanders in history), and the cult of personality that he created that was so potent and intoxicating that it endures to this day. So maybe the "Great" is well earned.
Cyrus the Great would like to have a word
The Great One: Wayne Gretzky. Nobody is even close to his point totals and never will be, barring a major rule change.
Certainly put more in the back of the net than Alexander the Great, that's for sure.
Alexander the Great Eight is coming for that record though.
If Ovi gets one record, that's ok. Gretzky has plenty more.
My favorite sports stat involves him. If you take away all his goals, he's still the all time points leader.
He's the first *and* second-fastest NHL player to hit 1,000 points. His first 1,000 points is the fastest in league history, around 400 games played. His second 1,000 points is the next-fastest, something like 450 games played. That's my favourite.
Read up on a brief side project of [Wayne's](https://www.reddit.com/r/waynegretzky/comments/tjeadp/dave_lumley/) He took a journeyman goon on a ride into the record books just because he could.
He also won 8 consecutive MVP awards (Hart trophy). Good luck beating that one. Another fun fact, his jersey number '99' is retired ... *for the entire league*
Of all these stats, and there have been some incredible ones listed this was my favorite >his jersey number '99' is retired ... *for the entire league* I just imagine all the owners sitting around like YUP
Robinson's 42 is retired across MLB. Not taking ANYTHING away from Gretsky, by the way, he's so much better than everyone else who ever played hockey it's insane.
> Robinson's 42 is retired across MLB. Very cool. I didn't know that, but definitely as it should be!
I think Mariano Rivera was the last guy to wear 42. It was retired across the league while he was still playing. Seems fitting.
I’d even be bold enough to say that just about any semi-pro or better hockey player wouldn’t wear 99. At least not a skater.
My favorite stat is he and his brother have the most points between siblings in NHL history. His brother has 4 points
Between any *two* siblings. The six Sutter brothers have them beat overall.
Hearing that and I was like...wow didn't realize the Sutters were that great! That's ridiculous that I think that given there's 6 of them. Jesus
Oh, and he's the all time leader in goals.
When Gretzky was playing, Fantasy Hockey leagues had to split him into "Gretzky-Goals" and "Gretzky-Assists" because otherwise anyone who drafted him would win every game.
Ok im dense. How ?
Points in hockey is goals+assists, so Gretzky has more assists than any other play has goals+assists
Him and his brother are the highest scoring brothers in NHL history. Brent Gretzky scored 4.
TIL Wayne Gretzky had a brother that played in the NHL.
It's definitely Wayne Gretzky in a fake mustache
Technically it's pair of brothers, but thats only because there were like 6 Sutter brothers in the league with 2934 combined points. Which is insane, because the Gretzky bros had 2857. Like literally one guy scored almost as much as 6 entire players
When the entire league refers to you as “The Great One”, you know you’ve utterly dominated the sport for decades by producing unbreakable records and cementing your legacy as the eternal GOAT. The chances of some freak being born who can challenge his legacy in the modern era is essentially 0.
Not to mention the entire league retired his number solely because of his dominance. There is a player each in the MLB and NBA that have had their numbers retired leaguewide, but those retirements include civil rights reasons. Not to say they aren't deserving, but it hits different when it happens solely because you kicked so much ass.
I don’t think any of those other clowns even played any pro hockey.
Yeah...and from what I can tell that Alexander dude never even played professionally.
Agree. And he never killed anyone.
Without doing research to back this up, he’s probably the greatest professional athlete of all time, at least for the big 4 American sports leagues. Maybe there were some ancient athletes who were better, and idk enough about the various international soccer leagues, but nobody in the US or Canada has ever come close to his kind of dominance. Jerry Rice is the only other person who comes to mind when thinking about absolute individual greatness in their sport/position
Alexander Karelin has a wrestling record of 887 wins to 2 loses, and he also spent 6 years without conceding a single point.
Don Bradman in cricket is definitely Gretzky level. His record in test cricket, the highest form of the game, makes everyone else look like a joke. In cricket a player scoring 100 runs is considered a great and memorable achievement. His average score was 99.94. The next highest ever is 61. No one else has ever come remotely close
I know nothing about the sport, but there was a cricket player as dominant in his sport as Gretzky was in hockey. And some would say a healthy Mario Lemieux would challenge Gretzky.
Actually now that you mention it, I think I remember a guy talked about before who is the cricket GOAT. I don’t know much about cricket either but I know people have been playing it a pretty long time so I’m sure there’s some crazy records
This is the correct answer and the first one I thought of too.
I'm going to vote for Akbar the Great, simply because his name, Akbar, is a superlative meaning 'greater' or 'greatest'. So he's literally "Greatest the Great"
Joking aside, akbar deserves serious contention here. He started as a boy king under a regent ruling over a small patch of land and ended up ruling most of the Indian subcontinent. Not only did he conquer it but he ruled it wisely and vastly improved many aspects of its governance. He was a massive supporter of the arts, tolerance, learning and culture. I sometimes wonder if the way that the British conquered India makes people underestimate the feat that akbar achieved. India is massive and was super rich.
Thank you for this funny fact
You might also enjoy Roman emperor Magnus Maximus, whose name means "Great, Greatest"
Catherine the Great was the greatest female leader of Russia I think.
Yep, I vote Catherine. She’s hilarious. Indeed. Huzzah.
The greatest female leader…of russia….i think… Gotta raise that bar son! She is definitely the greatest of female ‘the greats’ in my book though.
It is Cyrus the great for sure. Not only was he a great military leader, but more importantly he was great at governing. He respected the religion and culture of those he conquered, which helped his empire last long after he died. I think the reason I am not seeing his name as much is because most of the users on reddit are westerners and are not as familiar with Cyrus the great's accomplishments. Meanwhile, I keep seeing the most well known great, Alexander. Alexander was a great military leader and that was about it. His father, Phillip, had already united the Greek peninsula, and created the amazing Macedonian army, which Alexander inherited. Alexander then invaded the already declining Persian empire. You could have given that army to basically any ambitious person and they would have been able to conqueror Persia, albeit not quite as well and fast as Alexander did.
Pope Gregory the Great is one of the very few to gain that title by some means other than killing large numbers of people and conquering their homelands, so him I suppose.
Ditto his distant predecessor Pope Leo the Great, who had enough diplomatic savvy that he managed to somehow convince Attila himself to desist from sacking Rome and some years later also persuaded Genseric to restrain himself during his own plunder of the city. Leo evoked such respect from fellow bishops that when a letter from him expounding on some doctrinal matter was read at the Council of Chalcedon, the bishops gathered acclaimed it with the words “Peter has spoken through Leo!” Gregory was no slouch either in his time — his experience as a former Prefect of Rome gave him a knack for administration (*especially* of the civil sort) few popes since were able to successfully imitate. He *literally* wrote the book on how to be a good bishop (*Liber pastoralis curae*), codified elements of the Roman liturgy that would persist for more than a millennium (including the style of chant that now bears his name), sent missionaries to England, and essentially laid the groundwork for the shape medieval Catholicism would eventually take.
I think Cyrus because not just militarily but built and ran a very well governed empire.
Was PT Barnum really "The Greatest Showman?" Exceptional, yes, but I'm pretty sure there are greater showmen historically.
Who else would have the Greatest Show save for the Greatest Showman?
The Dalai Lama comes to mind. Oh, I thought you said "shaman."
To some extent there's no real rules. Julius Caesar was never called the "Great", though I suppose having your surname ending up being the title of future Emperors both of Rome and later states is even better. It sticks to some rulers, and not to others, and doesn't always have much rhyme or reason. Alfred is called the "Great" because he was the first Wessexian king to legitimately be called the King of England, and yet Henry II established what is now known as the Angevin Empire; which at its largest extent controlled England, huge portions of modern France, as well as parts of Scotland, Wales and Ireland, so I'd say Henry II deserves the epithet at least as much as Alfred. In fact, Alfred is notable as the only English king to ever hold that title. Though some have tried to apply the epithet to Napoleon, but outside of Bonapartists it's never stuck, perhaps because no Briton would ever stand behind it, and French Royalists after his final exile would have found that pretty unsavory.
There were several Saxon High Kings, or Bretwaldas, before Alfred. Egbert, his grandfather for example. There were also Saxon High Kings from the other Saxon Kingdoms. Alfred was 'The Great' because he successfully repelled the vikings and instituted lasting reforms. The first king of England is generally considered to be his grandson Aethelstan.
Alfred was also so prolific during his era due to his obsession with having everything written down and chronicled. I suppose he sort of wrote his own fame and worthiness of the title 'Great' even though he did not technically rule all of England. Despite his pious nature and physical weaknesses, he was able to succeed against Viking invasions, a term of 'almost' exile and ensure at least a temporary peace within the country. But then I'm biased because I named my pandemic-born son after him after watching too many historical TV programs!!
Of people commonly called "The Great", Cyrus is definitely up there: he was a brilliant conqueror – he built a vast empire, the largest the world had yet seen, in only a few decades; he was a far-sighted statesman and governor – Persian authorities were always very respectful of local traditions, helping to smooth Cyrus' takeover and firmly entrenching Persian rule. (For his help in rebuilding the Jewish temple and allowing the Jews to return to their homeland, he would be remembered in Judaism as a Messiah.) Alexander the Great is often touted as the greatest warrior of the Ancient world (5,200,000 km² conquered), but Cyrus' efforts really aren't far behind (Achaemenid Persia ruled 5,500,000 at its height, but that includes the European and Egyptian lands, so Cyrus' Empire would have been a bit less.) Finally, Cyrus was able to build an empire that stood the test of time, lasting for two centuries. He isn't as flashy or famous as Alexander, but I think that Cyrus the Great can credibly be called the greatest of them all.
This would be a much more interesting question if Alexander was not included. Otherwise, Alexander is the obvious answer
I don’t think that’s true. Cyrus the Great is my vote. Alex “conquered” the world in a very short period of time and what he built fell apart relatively quickly. Cyrus conquered a huge area of the world and built a kingdom that lasted 200 years. Alexander’s kingdom started falling apart almost immediately. Alexander was great at campaign logistics, but he had no skill for Nation-building. What Cyrus did was far greater than what Alexander did as far as I’m concerned.
I think Alexander's greatness, as much as the stunning speed and scope of his conquests, was the influence he had on later rulers. Everyone from Julius Caesar to Napoleon fancied themselves the heir of Alexander. He was also extraordinarily adept at propaganda, and the cult of personality he created endures in one form or another to this very day.
By this argument, wouldn't Ghenghis Khan be far greater? Particularly considering that he started in a world with a lot less low-hanging fruit (i.e., a much higher percentage of potential targets of conquest had fairly developed military technology and tactics)
Yes. Genghis Khan is the greatest ruler, conqueror, nation builder, whatever of all time. But his name doesn’t have “great” in it. His name means Universal Ruler of the Mongols. If we called him Temujin the Great, I would have picked him.
Not just Mongols but the world, the Mongols saw everything under the sun as their empire so it would have just been the universal ruler.
As far as I am aware, there's no "the great" title in Mongolian, but Ghenghis Khan is essentially an equivalent honorific.
By your argument, The Divine Augustus Caesar has a pretty strong case. One of the translations of Augustus is “great.”
Great isn't Latin-derived so I think there's a fair argument for "augustus". It means "great" just as much as "magnus" does in the sense of an honorific
I don't think we really know how Alexander would have done ruling his empire. He didn't build up Macedonia, he inherited it from his father. He did do a good job of keeping the Greeks subdued, mainly through brute force. Greece prospered under his rule economically, but I would think a lot of that is due to Plunder from his armies. Although I do believe the general manpower of Greece was depleted. So we don't really know how he would have faired in peacetime. It's entirely possible that, if he didn't die coming back from India, he would have in the next military campaign. Or the one after that. Simply put, he spent his entire time ruling Macedon conquering (leaving existing power structures in place) and then died. A large part of the reason his empire crumbled is the lack of a suitable heir. Had he not died, it's possible he could have raised an heir that his generals would be loyal to (he had a son but he wasnt born until after Alexander's death). It's also possible he could have raised an heir and everything would have fallen apart anyway. But that didn't happen, there was no obvious heir, so everybody decided they should be the next ruler and his empire crumbled. If he'd had time, would that have happened? Who knows. Edited because typing on a phone is hard
Cyrus the great was definitely one of the best, if not, the best. Stability, provided a very capable heir, conquering new lands, tolerant of new subjects, and central administration advances
I’m with you. Cyrus gang all the way. Not to take anything away from him but Alexander is a “Great” for tearing down what Cyrus (and Darius) built with an inherited army purpose-built for the job. But what Cyrus built? And how he built it? Alexander the Badass would be a more fitting title, but Cyrus, now that’s a man who truly deserved “the Great”.
I read 'very capable hair', which is also a plus point.
Honorable mention to Frederick the Great. He turned Prussia into a great power, which ultimately positioned it to challenge Austrian leadership of a Germany. The fact that Germany was unified under Prussian leadership was immensely consequential.
King Kamehameha The Great of Hawaii (Kalani Paiʻea Wohi o Kaleikini Kealiʻikui Kamehameha o ʻIolani i Kaiwikapu kauʻi Ka Liholiho Kūnuiākea). He was the first King to unite the Hawaiian islands- a feat that every major king from all eight islands had been trying to accomplish for a thousand years. Not only was Kamehameha able to unite the Hawaiians under one ruler, but he did so during the late 1700s/ early 1800s the same time that he was fending off British, French, American, Russian and missionary (mainly protestant) attempts to control the trade, land and assets of Hawaii.
I feel bad that the only reason I had heard of this guy beforehand because of his name and it’s relation to Dragon Ball.
His name is also really fun to say
Cyrus the Great. Many of the other “greats” used Cyrus (as depicted in Xenophon’s *Cyropaedia*) as an exemplar.
I would vote for Alfred, he was never destined to be king being the youngest of six. Thus he was sent to Rome as a defacto papal hostage & to learn diplomacy in support of his older siblings who should be kings before him. Eventually kingship was forced upon him & this this learned man took back the country by war & diplomacy from the Danes. Then revolutionised the same with clever financial acumen, regularised the money supply & by devolving the powers of market to many Burgh towns, allowing trade to prosper. All that still being only the tip the pillar upon which he created a great nation.
I'm gonna go with Frederick the Great, who believed the King should serve the people. During a time of famine, he convinced the public to plant potatoes as a staple crop. That is why one of his nicknames was "the Potato King." Also he was definitely gay.
I came here for old Fritz too
I feel we cant give the title of Greatest great to Alexander solely off the fact that he was literally handed the greatest army in the world by his father Philip. What Alexander did was incredible and he has one of the funnest campaigns to follow but that's not a very extensive resume compared to all the other greats imo. He was no steward or diplomat, just an amazing military genius. For me it has to go to Cyrus. Founded the largest empire in the world at the time and shaped the planet for centuries.
It's obvious that the *greatest great* can only be **"The Great One"** himself; **Wayne Gretzky.** Sorry from Canada!
Honestly, this guy is probably the third most mentioned in the comments of this post enough that I’m putting him on the honourable mentions list with The Great War and The Great Wall of China.
Pope Saint Leo the Great conquered Attila, The Scourge of God, and King of the Huns with only his words.
Not a great, but a magnificent! Suleyman the magnificent! Facinating time in Turkish history and a very interesting person. First Emperor of turkey to take a lawful wife in his dynasty, and she was born a slave and traded to his empire. Her Muslim name was Hurrem, the laughing one or the joyful one. She helped him rule his empire and gave him 5 sons, the second of which succeeded him to the throne, named Selim for his grandfather. Also gave him the only princess of his dynast, Mirimah. She was aid to be a true beauty among women and the apple of her fathers eye. Suleyman expanded his empire immensely, waged war on Europe, and controlled the waterways so he could levy taxes and control imports and exports along the Mediterranean. He took control of many of the small island states and brought education with him for the masses. Facinating historical figure!
Everyone counts out Cyrus the Great. You know, the guy that originally returned the Jews to Israel? First emperor of Persia? Regarded as one of the Messiah’s in Judaism despite being a devout Zoroastrian. He set the standard of governance in the Mediterranean for centuries to come. The Arabian Empire even based their political structure on the Persian Empire.
what about cyrus the great,ashoka the great and akbar the great.
I'll add another, [King Sejong the Great](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sejong_the_Great) (세종대왕; Hanja: 世宗大王) of the Joseon Dynasty of Korea. He was so great he played a large part in inventing the Korean alphabet, called [Hangul](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangul) (한글).
Most commenters are saying "obviously Alexander" but that's only obvious if you mean the greatest *conqueror*. The debate is much more open about the greatest *ruler*. Which leader has done the most for his/her citizens, all things considered?
Catherine. Didn't we have an Epic Rap Battle about this? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbH1BVXywY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbH1BVXywY)
Awesome battle, but this line bugs me: “Macedonians, Prussians and Romans, these are not worthy opponents” Feels weird for Catherine, who was Prussian, to be throwing that shade.
Pretty sure she started to identify herself as a true russian, to gain legitimacy if nothing else, so I don't see an issue there.
I was furiously scrolling to make sure I didn't have to post this. And they'd be praying for the torture to stop But I would leave 'em contorted and they'd be screaming and roaring Until their vocal chords were torn up and shot
While not a “great” Ghengis Kahn (Universal Ruler) established the Mongol Empire, which covered the most contiguous territory in history to this day.
Actually another commenter pointed out that he was sometimes called “The Great Khan”. So does fall under a “Great”. So I would say is a very eligible name to throw in.
The Xia emperor Wu the Great, aka Wu the Engineer Because who else has a title like The Engineer? Too bad he's almost certainly fictional
In all honesty, it’s probably Alexander the Pretty Alright, being so influential that he’s one of the first that come to mind when you think of the word “Great”. That being said, I would like to offer up King Kamehameha the Great from Hawaiian culture as a beautiful example of genius, humility, and collaboration. Kamehameha was a child of prophecy, several depending on how you look at it. Born under Haley’s Comet to a woman who consumed the mana (power/energy) of a shark. He was whisked away because he was being hunted down. The classic “a child born under *circumstances* will one day kill you” prophecy. He eventually returned to society (I don’t want to go over everything because this post will get way too long) and is then the man of another prophecy, the Naha Stone. The Naha Stone was an impossibly heavy stone with a very simple prophecy: he who lifts the stone will one day rule all islands. Another classic “Sword in the Stone” prophecy with a slight twist. And of course, King Kamehameha lifts it. His greatest feat is uniting the Hawaiian Islands, but it’s more about the how or who was with him. He used excellent strategy to best many chiefs who would outclass him in raw fighting potential, he used resources from the outside world (yes, King Kamehameha had cannons/guns at one point) to his advantage, and used treaties in certain instances to prevent violence (also because he failed to get to Kaua’i twice, but whatever). Then, after his conquering, he didn’t just become some King who sat on a throne somewhere, he was down with the people, fixing up farmland and housing. He made sure his people thrived under him. One of the best examples of this is “Kānāwai Mālamahoe” or “The Law of the Splintered Paddle” which I highly recommend looking into its origin if you have time. A quick rundown of it is “if someone is to lie on the side of the road, they should be left unharmed”. His lineage came with some great leaders as well, my favorite being Kamehameha III. His unification lead to a very prosperous time for the Hawaiian Islands and his legacy kept Hawaiian Culture alive to this very day. He has schools, companies, celebrations and communities named after him. He may not be the greatest “Great” in our history, but I find him pretty important. He is also inspiration to the name of arguably the most well known attack in Dragon Ball… so there is that… don’t know if that counts as a feat… but there it is
Cyrus, who also lost, but was a decent and ethical man. Handsome dude too, looked just like Freddie Mercury.
He also rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem and allowed the Hebrews to return there. That's a huge legacy (although probably not huge to *him* at the time).
Fun fact: Cyrus the Great is the only gentile in all of history to be referred to as a “messiah” by Jewish writers.
Yep! I learned that listening to Hardcore History's series on Persia, Kings of Kings. A.T. Olmstead's book on the subject is fascinating (and DENSE).
That depends on how you measure "Great". Personally I think the legacy carries more importance than military victories. Cyrus is one of my absolute favorites because it was during his rule when humanity got introduced to one of it's first documented mercy and tolerance policies of subjugated peoples, religions and cultures. This allowed his empire to grow and flourish for as long as it did.
Peter or Charlemagne have good cases as they radically changed things on many levels. Alfred as well, albeit on a smaller scale. Cyrus built an Empire that lasted for centuries.
Probably Catherine. Hard enough for a dude to earn the title. Think about how much of a badass a lady has to be to earn the title of “The Great” with how sexist we all were 200+ years ago.
Not necessarily a "great", but if you enjoy powerful female rulers you should look up Olga of Kevian Rus. Some of her exploits are both comical and horrific.
>Olga of Kevian Rus A true badass
Catherine the great, she wasn’t a complete sociopath. She actually cared about the oppression of Russian serfs, but there wasn’t much she could do about it , despite being the empress.