There can't be many.
I would imagine the closest you could get to it would be the "Five Good Emperors" of the Pax Romana period :
Nerva
Trajan
Hadrian
Antoninus Pius
Marcus Aurelius
2007-03-29 12:31:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by the_lipsiot 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Rulers don't kill people often. they get someone else like army participants to do it for them.
Peace I assert is a false concept. There's only active war and overwhelming armed or diplomatic preparedness, safeguards, etc. In other words, either you protect yourself so well no one attacks you, or you get someone else to do so.
Empires are usually fighting or attacking someone; so are kingdoms, both being gangster-ruled dictatorships.
If you want a first-rate ruler, you'd have to find a democratically-elected fellow, who could be dis-elected
or replaced (theoretically) is he couldn't succeed or explain what he was doing well enough.;
And this president would have to be very lucky to avoid being attacked by poorer crazies from another country less intelligently run than his was.
Outside of ancient Greece, the early Roman republic and the United States, there haven't been many governments worth spitting on. Sorry, I say there haven't been. The most peaceful right now are Sweden, Switzerland, Iceland and Bermuda.
So, one ruler interested in justice and therefore probably sane would be Solon of ancient Athens, and another
Nerva of ancient Rome. US? Lincoln.
2007-03-29 19:43:00
·
answer #2
·
answered by Robert David M 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Ghandi
2007-03-29 19:29:54
·
answer #3
·
answered by JOHN 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Queen Victoria killed people by declaring war on the Russians. That's why Florence Nightingale had to do her thing over there.
George Washington had Appalachian farmers hanged for evading taxes. (The farmers felt that they didn't have to pay them because they were not consulted or represented before they were passed.)
Abraham Lincoln initiated the American Civil War. He had people arrested for opposing his warmongering. Abe Lincoln, the young lawyer, was an OK guy, but Abraham Lincoln, the President, was similar to Josef Stalin. If you even talked against Lincoln in 1860 you might get quietly arrested and buried somewhere.
2007-03-31 17:04:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would really love to give you an answer that is informative and correct, as it is a fantastic question.....
Edgar "the Peaceful" "King of England"
Born 944AD
Died 8 Jul 975AD, Winchester, ENGLAND Age: 31
1 October 959 Edgar suceeded the throne but was not crowned until 973 because St. Dunstan, the Archbishop of Canterbury, disaproved of his way of life. - [1]
11 May 973 Edgar acceded to the throne of King of England in a ceremony held at Bath Abbey. He reigned until his death in 975.
The first King of a united England. He allowed his Danish subjects to retain Danish laws. Edgar promoted a monastic revival and encouraged trade by reforming the currency. He improved defence by organising coastal naval patrols and a system for manning warships
Edgar was made King of Mercia and Northumbria in 957 and succeed to the throne of Wessex at his brother, Eadwig's, death in 959. With this, Edgar was King of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex (the three most powerful kingdoms in England at that time), simultaneously and could be considered the first ruler of a United England. Some of his predecessors were Kings of All England by virtue of being King of Wessex and, at the same time, enjoying a temporary military ascendancy over the other kingdoms.
He was formally crowned in 973 and received the ceremonial submission of all the other kings in Britain. He wisely recalled (St.) Dunstan from exile and made him Archbishop of Canterbury and his closest personal advisor. His reign was prosperous and peaceful and he is generally credited with the revival of the English church
2007-03-31 04:47:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by Mintjulip 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
if you want someone "famous" then I cannot give you one. BUT many indian (as in native americans) chiefs were in power for a reason. People revered their knowledge. They didn't have to kill anyone, they didn't oppress or force anyone to do anything.
Contrary to the history books, natives were peaceful folks. They realised we are all connected and what harm you do to someone, it will come back to you tenfold. Many tribes (if not all) didn't contain the words "I'm sorry" in their dialect because they ALWAYS thought it through before they acted or spoke. There was no word for "lie" either.
They were a pure people. It was this reason why the Euro's were able to destroy them.
2007-04-01 13:50:09
·
answer #6
·
answered by cnith 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't think its possible to find anyone who was ever a ruler of people that never had people killed to stay in power or used force to forward their agenda in some way.
2007-03-29 19:30:57
·
answer #7
·
answered by Dan M 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
King Asoka of the Mauryan Empire. He did wage war, initially, but shocked by the ravage and suffering he was causing, he converted to Buddhism, declared that he would never wage war again, but work for the peace of the world. His son and daughter later ordained in Buddhism and spent their life spreading the doctrine of peace.
2007-03-30 01:50:26
·
answer #8
·
answered by Lawrence M 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
John Howard
2007-03-31 08:13:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by That guy 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Queen Victoria. George Washington. Abraham Lincoln.
2007-03-29 19:35:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by Nathan 1
·
0⤊
2⤋