[fuser]

Gandhi can credit himself with having achieved independence without giving power to a military-bureaucratic dictatorship, without civil war, and all the while creating a lasting democratic State despite intense poverty (whatever India's other massive problems).

without civil war? what was India Pakistan partition? Creation of a lasting democratic nation has nothing to do with "Gandhi", it was good for India that he didn't opted for power after independence. Democratic legacy of India is/should be credited to "Nehru" and "Vallabhbhai Patel", if we are crediting leaders solely.

Also Indian Independence was inevitable with almost same result with or without Gandhi with most imminent reason being Royal Indian Naval Mutiny which Gandhi abandoned.

[JRS1]

I wonder why there doesn't seem to be any real British contenders, considering the size of the empire?

[Dr House]

The British Empire, while hands down the largest and most successful Empire in history by any reasonable metric, was moreso an institutional project than the legacy of one individual.

[Social_Critic]

I don't think the English empire was such a big deal. First I would rank the Roman empire. They gave us proper languages, and cement. And without proper languages and cement, the English wouldn't even be able to speak English, which is after all derived from a mixture of French and German, and without cement they would make their buildings out of wood. And seeing that most of England lacks proper wood, Big Ben would be a 5 meter tall tower with a guy sitting on top wearing a watch.

[Bounce]

I don't think the English empire was such a big deal. First I would rank the Roman empire. They gave us proper languages, and cement. And without proper languages and cement, the English wouldn't even be able to speak English, which is after all derived from a mixture of French and German, and without cement they would make their buildings out of wood. And seeing that most of England lacks proper wood, Big Ben would be a 5 meter tall tower with a guy sitting on top wearing a watch.

"Roman cement" is a substance developed by James Parker in the 1780s, and finally patented in 1796. It was, in fact, nothing like any material used by the Romans, but was a "Natural cement" made by burning septaria - nodules that are found in certain clay deposits, and that contain both clay minerals and calcium carbonate.

This, like most things I read on here, I'm never sure whether they are satirical.

[Soixante-Retard]

Military Leaders (in no particular order):
▪ Alexander III of Macedon
▪ Napoléon Bonaparte
▪ Genghis Khan
▪ Ramesses II
▪ Arthur Wellesley
▪ William the Conqueror
▪ Julius Caesar
▪ Hannibal
▪ Cyrus II of Persia
▪ George Washington

[Potemkin]

Bernard Montgomery

Why? His own men regarded him as little more than a 'mad mascot'. Surely the Duke of Wellington would have been a better choice - after all, his Peninsular campaign was a strategic masterpiece, and he defeated Napoleon on the field of battle at Waterloo.

[Soixante-Retard]

Well I replaced Dwight Eisenhower with Montgomery since I had reservations with Eisenhower. But I think you're right - Wellington would have been a better choice. Fixed.

[R_G]

What's George Washington doing there?

My thoughts exactly.



I think from a grand scheme perspective, guys like Napoleon, Alexander and Augustus had not only military outcomes but social outcomes as well that remain long-lasting.

[Potemkin]

I think from a grand scheme perspective, guys like Napoleon, Alexander and Augustus had not only military outcomes but social outcomes as well that remain long-lasting.

Washington was a highly competent military commander, and his political and social legacy is enormous. Washington was the Napoleon of the American Revolution, but without the megalomania, the dictatorial tendencies, the aggressive foreign policy or the defeat at Waterloo. He deserves his place among the greats.

[wat0n]

But in the top 10? I'm not sure...

[Section Leader]

In no particular order:

Vladimir Lenin
Adolf Hitler
Napoleon
Mao Tse Tung
Genghis Khan
Oliver Cromwell
Arthur Wellesley
George Washington
Julius Caesar
Alexander the Great

[houndred]

I think ,social critic, that this is the biggest load of utter guff I have actually seen here barring the obviously insane.

I don't think the English empire was such a big deal. First I would rank the Roman empire.

Your choice. I'm a fan of Rome myself.

They gave us proper languages, and cement.

Proper langauges? Are you off your chump? The world is full of proper lanaguges and has been for millenia. In what way is Greek or Hebrew not a proper langauge (or Assyrian, Mandarin or Aztec).

And without proper languages and cement, the English wouldn't even be able to speak English, which is after all derived from a mixture of French and German,

It is is derived from proto Germanic and is a western Germanic lanaguage in its own right which includes vocabulary from hundreds of different languages. A lagre chunk derives from Medeaval Norman French.

Germany did not need the existence of Rome to be able to speak German. WIthout Rome we would just not have so many latin derived words.

and without cement they would make their buildings out of wood.

Or Bricks. The standard Building method for the last 400 years or wattle and daub the standard from millenia before that.

And seeing that most of England lacks proper wood, Big Ben would be a 5 meter tall tower with a guy sitting on top wearing a watch.

Big Ben is a bell. It is cast from Bronze.

I presume you refer to the Clock Tower that houses Big Ben. In whih case it is made of Bricks and not cement.
cement has not been a major construction ingredient until the early twentieth century and is nothing like the roman stucco you refer to.