Greatest leaders?

Question

Why is it that most "great" leaders in history also have a lot of blood on their hands. Caesar, Napoleon, FDR, etc... each of them is hailed for their achievements, but to accomplish them, many lives were lost in the process. So is one of the inherent qualifications for being a great "leader" causing lots of death and destruction in the process?

Answer 1

Because for 95% of human history battle was the way to settle conflicts and it took great leaders to win great victories.
I don't consider F.D.R. as having blood on his hands.

Answer 2

The most remembered quality a leader can have is to have caused change. Was the change better or worse than what was before is open for debate and more so, a matter of opinion. However, change is constant, so those who lead it will always be remembered as progressors.

Major change on a full scale social level within a country or large culture is pretty much guaranteed to have resistance, thus, a bloodbath.

Personally, I consider Lenin the greatest leader in modern history. Most won't agree.

Answer 3

Because that is what makes them great men in history. If they did not do what they did (conquer civilizations, establish empires and new ways of spreading art, literature, and culture) then you would not be studying them.

Would you consider someone like Taft a great leader? Someone like Louis XII? Someone like Marcus Bibulus? No. Why? Because they didn't accomplish anything. Roosevelt (who is not a conqueror anyway), Napoleon, Caesar, Alexander, Charlemagne--these are the people who accomplish great things. They may kill people to do so, but that is the way of things.

Answer 4

Lumping leaders who lead in times of war together as having blood on their hands, does not lead to a full appreciation of the circumstances.

You mention Napoleon and Cesar both of whom engaged in territorial expansion that cost hundreds of thousands of lives. On the other hand, FDR, after the attack of Dec 7, 1941 had no choice but to enter the war or surrender. Would the surrender of the US in WW2 cost more or fewer lives than taking course it took?

So the question is, does a sovereign country have a right or even a duty to defend its boards? If the country is attacked, does the leader of that country have blood on his hands for defending his borders?

Answer 5

Well, the reverse question might answer your own, which is "why aren't there any leaders who DIDN'T win battles against enemies who are called 'great'?"

It's because they either ruled during times of peace and prosperity and thus had nothing to really work against, or that they lived in violent times and were defeated and forgotten.

Answer 6

The greatest man, leader, husband, father, son, friends, and peace maker on earth was Muhammad(pbuhs). He, in a time of wars against the rival tribes of the Arabia. United the entire area in his lifetime. Laying the seeds for the greatest religon and nation ever seen. In less then 500 year the empire and religon he started ruled most of the world. From Spain, to Malaysia. Now there are 2+ billion people whom follow the religon God gave to him to spread. God gave us, humanity, one last chance and we took it like we accepted no prophet before.

Answer 7

They never intended for people to die along the way. Look at FDR; he was elected 8 years before the U.S. went to war. At that time, war was unavoidable.

Answer 8

What does "blood on their hands" mean? If it means the killing and maiming people for your own personal glory then I suppose so validity to you hypothesis. But if you have to save your country from true, real evil then it is a compromise you must take.

Answer 9

Look at God, over 900 quadrillion dead.