Laith, you be doing my man Alfred dirty. He is responsible for the creation of schools which not only educated the nobles but also the lower class, he organized the first navy for the anglo-saxon england. Not only this but his standing army was revolutionary in his day. He also defeated the norsemen and set up a treaty which made him the godfather of his beaten foe. To add onto this he translated many texts and was known for helping England to grow in culture. Not to mention his fortified town defense system which made protecting against raids much easier than it ever had been before. Not only did Alfred lay the foundations for the kingdom England (formed by his grandson I believe), he set in motion a slew of different aspects of western culture that still affect us today.
Given that there are already 3(!) people from Russian states in the tierlist I am a bit surprised you left out Ivan III, the man who by all definitions created the Russian state.
Not putting gustavus adolphus further up is a shame, beating up the WHOLE of the german empire, beating 3 great powers alone while being 17 years old. Also being so close to claiming to emperor title in germany.
It’s insane how much he did in his lifetime with the little resources he had. Comparing that to other countries that actually had natural resources and good geographical position, is not fair. Also just cause other kings after him fucked up doesnt mean he didint leave a long lasting impact.
One of the reason he couldnt conquer more was cause eventually whole of europe formed a coalition against him (except spain and otto)
Alfred being below canute is criminal. Alfred should be higher purely because he inherited a terrible situation. Every other Kingdom in what would later become england was swallowed by the Great heathen army. At the time people probably thought this was the end of saxon rule in britain, and that the england would become daneland. Alfred in 878 AD had his Kingdom conquered and he was forced to hide in the swamps. This would've been the end of saxon england if it weren't for the unlikely victory Alfred had against Guthrum at eddington. Alfred then defended against successive waves of viking invasions in his Kingdom by reforming the military organisation of wessex, starting a building project of fortications throughout wessex, which was a totally new concept to the saxons. He went from losing his Kingdom to projecting his power beyond his borders, becoming the overlord of saxon mercia, having welsh kings swear fealty to him and rebuilding and developing london, effectively making the city important for the first time since the romans had left Britain. Alfred's essentially set up the administration that would make england the most centralized kingdom in western europe prior to the norman conquests. I do think sometimes he may be a bit overhyped, but without Alfred there simply wouldn't be england.
I do think Justinian is a bit overrated considering he basically left the Roman treasury and manpower poor desolate at his death, plus due to his inability to ever properly control Italy, the Lombards would slowly chip away at Roman power in Italy for the next two centuries.
Solomon the great also became the ruler when he was 15 even though part of his family and some strong individuals in the area were against it. he did win battle of Khresili (1757) without outside help and got certain independence from ottomans the same way but since 1758 his endeavors were supported by Teimuraz the 2nd and Erekle the 2nd (of Kartli and Kakheti) but those 2 are minor powers when compared to the ottomans.
I think in terms of succession it is deserving to state that alexander died much much younger than many of the other people on the list. He didn’t get the chance to form a proper administration for his empire. But from what we know the areas he did have a more statesman-esque authority over were extremely well governed
Manuel comnene was never called "the great because" as you said, he didn't do anything exceptional and even made many mistakes that will later cost the empire. You confuse with manual 1st of Portugal who was called "the Great"
You could do an Asian one with figures like Ashoka, Akbar, Rajendra, Sejong, Qin Shi Huang, Kublai Khan, Bayinnaung, Naresuan… I was also surprised to see figures like Sargon, Nebuchadnezzar, Simeon I and Vladimir of Kiev missing from this list. So definitely room for a part 2!
A short comment on Christianity and christianisation in Europe.. The only way the continent could stand the waves of muslim invasions, was to unite under the Christian banners. And mass conversions of peoples generally only happened after impactful military victories of Christian armies against pagan ones. So your statement about this not playing an objective role in titling 'Greats' is basically wrong. And BEING nationalistic, my own statements about christianisation offend me; since Catholicism was one of the very anti-nationalistic forces in Europe. It was, from the beginning, always, international. And still is 😉
Second … what we're talking about is NOT really Christianity, but Catholicism and Orthodoxy. If you do not know the differences, you definitely should not be talking about this.
I think the craziest part about the time of Justinian is that you basically had his twin in Khosrow, major military conquests and victories, completely reformed the legal system and made major societal and military reforms. It’s kind of interesting to see how the moment Rome and Persia stopped fighting they immediately both had a sort of Renaissance in power and security.
I've never heard Valentinian called 'The Great'. He was one of the most competent monarchs of his era, but he was overshadowed by Constantine and right afterwards, Theodosius. However, he did once get so angry that he straight up died on the spot, which is funny.
Alexander did do alot of reforms both to his military and culturally because his marching army was only like 20-30 thousand men. So he knew that in order to conquer anything he'd have to have reinforcements both all the way from Greece and possibly from conquered people. And so that is what he did. He incorporated captured men into his army plus he let local rulers "rule" as long they were in check and so on. Also he didn't just go butchering stuff he did offer surrender to speed things along, but he absolutely did if people refused. Its just no fair to compare any other to this guy. He bloody did all that before 33 years of age. Its impossibly great. He should have his own tier, Mythical or God tier, or something like that. Edit: Oh and btw he founded like 10+ Alexandria's.
Brain dead😂😂😂 (hey, you said to call you that)! Alfred the Great was at least a great “great” because he inherited a petty kingdom suddenly and unexpectedly after his brother died and he managed to fight the great heathen army which had taken out all of England to a stand still. We are talking the army of Vikings created by Bjorn Ironside, Ivar the boneless, Halfdan Whiteshirt and Sigurdr snake in the eye. He made several reforms including legal reforms and set up the stage for his son Edward the elder to nearly wipe the Vikings out of England and because of him his grandson would become the first king of England
(Please read this, I know it’s a long read but Charlemagne is a large topic) Excuse you, but Charlemagne, the father of Europe and the first holy Roman emperor, defender of the pope and grandfather of modern kings should join Cyrus the Great in that special ranking. Yes, he inherited a strong nation from his father but his expansion was incredible. He conquered northern Italy, modern Germany and put down several Saxon rebellions, managed to pacify that region which is so unruly and not only that but he set up the success for his dynasty in the hundreds of years to come.
The thing about Charlemagne and the Karlings in general is that they didn’t just triumph, they planned decades, hundreds of years ahead. They aimed for the success of their dynasty, not just themselves. Think of Charlemagne like Tywin Lannister. Like you said he also started the Carolingian renaissance and he WAS undefeated in battle because the battle you mentioned was technically an ambush and he didn’t command the army, he was already far ahead. It was his knights that held the rear and even if it counted it would only be one loss.
Not only that, but speaking of lasting impacts, he is the direct descendant of the Capetian and Habsburg houses which spread from his Karling dynasty and so in the process of intricately planning the success of his Karling dynasty he advanced all the houses linked to it including the Capetians and later the Habsburgs. He was the master of Europe. He essentially was responsible for every thing that happened in Europe after him and the name Karling still held power even after their fall from grace in around the 12th century and to marry one of the surviving strands of such a prestigious house was considered an immense gift.
I would not even say that the karlings died out. I think that the dynasty just changed name. It all stemmed from the greatest and most effective ruler of a dynasty, Charlemagne.
Dude, u r all over the place. Why r Alfred, Stephen, and Otto even in a discussion with Temujin, Cyrus, Alexander, and Constantine?
These 'great' appellations are mainly from church historians and reflect good relations with the church, but not much else (see Alfred and canute).
Half these guys weren't even called great. So is it a 'greats' list or just people ur impressed with. Like Temujin. His title is Genghis Khan, which is loosely translated as 'universal leader', not 'the great'.
The Codex Justianian has had little impact today and western law has more roots in the Germania law codes not the Roman.
U gotta have some standards or read more. Xerxes is not so great, but Adolphus is great? Adolphus was not undefeated and did not win the 30 years war. Even the label of father of modern warfare is in dispute. So, in a war that the hapsburgs arguably won, how is he great but no hapsburg or Spanish king is on this list?
And Frederick. Oh, Frederick. Give me a break. Did he found Prussia? No. Did he unify Germany? No. Did he even become the emperor? No. So, why is he great?
And pharaohs? Ramesses is not the top. That belongs to Tutmoses Ii or III, with a kingdom that stretched to Mesopotamia.
If ur going to pull in Temujin into tiers then why not Qin Huang Di? The Chinese had to invent a title because no one even had unified China before.
Personally, I don't consider mass murderers "great", so none of these guys get that label. But my top conquerors list would be Temujin, Cyrus, Alexander, Napoleon, Tamerlane, Caesar, Tutmoses, Qin Huang Di, Nader Shah, Oda Nabunaga, Philip II, Catherine, and Sulieman.
Some leaders that i think should have made the list are: Shapur II The Great(Sassanian Empire), Casimir III (of Poland), Mithridates II (of Parthia), Herod The Great, Hugh Capet (Magnus), Antiochus III (Seleucid Empire), Tigranes The Great (Armenia), Vladimir The Great (Kievan Rus), Sejong the Great (Korean, Joseon Dynasty).. and some honorable mentions that weren't typically referred to as "the Great" but still should make the list, are: Sargon of Akkad, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Nebuchadnezzar II (Babylonian Empire), and my personal favorite- Emperor Trajan, who was referred to as "OPTIMO PRINCEPS", which basically means "The Best Prince" or "The Optimum Ruler/Emperor"
Do the rest of Greats. (Wikipedia have a list of them)
Yo Laith do you have the link to this teirlist it looks pretty fun.
Laith, you be doing my man Alfred dirty. He is responsible for the creation of schools which not only educated the nobles but also the lower class, he organized the first navy for the anglo-saxon england. Not only this but his standing army was revolutionary in his day. He also defeated the norsemen and set up a treaty which made him the godfather of his beaten foe. To add onto this he translated many texts and was known for helping England to grow in culture. Not to mention his fortified town defense system which made protecting against raids much easier than it ever had been before. Not only did Alfred lay the foundations for the kingdom England (formed by his grandson I believe), he set in motion a slew of different aspects of western culture that still affect us today.
Given that there are already 3(!) people from Russian states in the tierlist I am a bit surprised you left out Ivan III, the man who by all definitions created the Russian state.
Not putting gustavus adolphus further up is a shame, beating up the WHOLE of the german empire, beating 3 great powers alone while being 17 years old. Also being so close to claiming to emperor title in germany.
It’s insane how much he did in his lifetime with the little resources he had. Comparing that to other countries that actually had natural resources and good geographical position, is not fair. Also just cause other kings after him fucked up doesnt mean he didint leave a long lasting impact.
One of the reason he couldnt conquer more was cause eventually whole of europe formed a coalition against him (except spain and otto)
Alfred being below canute is criminal. Alfred should be higher purely because he inherited a terrible situation. Every other Kingdom in what would later become england was swallowed by the Great heathen army. At the time people probably thought this was the end of saxon rule in britain, and that the england would become daneland. Alfred in 878 AD had his Kingdom conquered and he was forced to hide in the swamps. This would've been the end of saxon england if it weren't for the unlikely victory Alfred had against Guthrum at eddington. Alfred then defended against successive waves of viking invasions in his Kingdom by reforming the military organisation of wessex, starting a building project of fortications throughout wessex, which was a totally new concept to the saxons. He went from losing his Kingdom to projecting his power beyond his borders, becoming the overlord of saxon mercia, having welsh kings swear fealty to him and rebuilding and developing london, effectively making the city important for the first time since the romans had left Britain. Alfred's essentially set up the administration that would make england the most centralized kingdom in western europe prior to the norman conquests. I do think sometimes he may be a bit overhyped, but without Alfred there simply wouldn't be england.
"Imagine only being great" – Suleiman the Magnificent
Decent list I would say. Obviously I don't agree 100 percent, but good overall 👍
3:25 best green screen ever 🙂
Otto created a trash state nothing great about this feat lmao
The Charlemagne slander is goofy af
Mf mentioned Mstyslav the Great but didnt mention his great great grandpa Volodymyr the Great??? Why?
WHERE IS CAESER WHERE IS NAPOLEON WHATTTT?
AND TO PUT CHARLEMAGNE THERE WHATTT
I do think Justinian is a bit overrated considering he basically left the Roman treasury and manpower poor desolate at his death, plus due to his inability to ever properly control Italy, the Lombards would slowly chip away at Roman power in Italy for the next two centuries.
Solomon the great also became the ruler when he was 15 even though part of his family and some strong individuals in the area were against it. he did win battle of Khresili (1757) without outside help and got certain independence from ottomans the same way but since 1758 his endeavors were supported by Teimuraz the 2nd and Erekle the 2nd (of Kartli and Kakheti) but those 2 are minor powers when compared to the ottomans.
Suliman deserved to be here he was a magnificant great
I think in terms of succession it is deserving to state that alexander died much much younger than many of the other people on the list. He didn’t get the chance to form a proper administration for his empire. But from what we know the areas he did have a more statesman-esque authority over were extremely well governed
Mithridates marrying his sister is surely a notch towards greatness. r/shitcrusaderkingssay
Justinian is overrated. Renovatio Imperii basically just served to alienate the kingdoms of the roman commonwealth.
Please do the muslim version of this video
Manuel comnene was never called "the great because" as you said, he didn't do anything exceptional and even made many mistakes that will later cost the empire. You confuse with manual 1st of Portugal who was called "the Great"
You could do an Asian one with figures like Ashoka, Akbar, Rajendra, Sejong, Qin Shi Huang, Kublai Khan, Bayinnaung, Naresuan… I was also surprised to see figures like Sargon, Nebuchadnezzar, Simeon I and Vladimir of Kiev missing from this list. So definitely room for a part 2!
what about Sargon of Akkad?
A short comment on Christianity and christianisation in Europe.. The only way the continent could stand the waves of muslim invasions, was to unite under the Christian banners. And mass conversions of peoples generally only happened after impactful military victories of Christian armies against pagan ones. So your statement about this not playing an objective role in titling 'Greats' is basically wrong. And BEING nationalistic, my own statements about christianisation offend me; since Catholicism was one of the very anti-nationalistic forces in Europe. It was, from the beginning, always, international. And still is 😉
Second … what we're talking about is NOT really Christianity, but Catholicism and Orthodoxy. If you do not know the differences, you definitely should not be talking about this.
Spanish generals missing…. what a pity
Where tf Is Tsar Simeon the Great
Ramesses should be higher just for making you go to the shadow realm for half a minute.
what about Sargon the Great and Nebuchadnezzar the Great
I think the craziest part about the time of Justinian is that you basically had his twin in Khosrow, major military conquests and victories, completely reformed the legal system and made major societal and military reforms. It’s kind of interesting to see how the moment Rome and Persia stopped fighting they immediately both had a sort of Renaissance in power and security.
I've never heard Valentinian called 'The Great'. He was one of the most competent monarchs of his era, but he was overshadowed by Constantine and right afterwards, Theodosius.
However, he did once get so angry that he straight up died on the spot, which is funny.
Alexander did do alot of reforms both to his military and culturally because his marching army was only like 20-30 thousand men. So he knew that in order to conquer anything he'd have to have reinforcements both all the way from Greece and possibly from conquered people. And so that is what he did. He incorporated captured men into his army plus he let local rulers "rule" as long they were in check and so on. Also he didn't just go butchering stuff he did offer surrender to speed things along, but he absolutely did if people refused. Its just no fair to compare any other to this guy. He bloody did all that before 33 years of age. Its impossibly great. He should have his own tier, Mythical or God tier, or something like that.
Edit: Oh and btw he founded like 10+ Alexandria's.
Brain dead😂😂😂 (hey, you said to call you that)! Alfred the Great was at least a great “great” because he inherited a petty kingdom suddenly and unexpectedly after his brother died and he managed to fight the great heathen army which had taken out all of England to a stand still. We are talking the army of Vikings created by Bjorn Ironside, Ivar the boneless, Halfdan Whiteshirt and Sigurdr snake in the eye. He made several reforms including legal reforms and set up the stage for his son Edward the elder to nearly wipe the Vikings out of England and because of him his grandson would become the first king of England
(Please read this, I know it’s a long read but Charlemagne is a large topic) Excuse you, but Charlemagne, the father of Europe and the first holy Roman emperor, defender of the pope and grandfather of modern kings should join Cyrus the Great in that special ranking. Yes, he inherited a strong nation from his father but his expansion was incredible. He conquered northern Italy, modern Germany and put down several Saxon rebellions, managed to pacify that region which is so unruly and not only that but he set up the success for his dynasty in the hundreds of years to come.
The thing about Charlemagne and the Karlings in general is that they didn’t just triumph, they planned decades, hundreds of years ahead. They aimed for the success of their dynasty, not just themselves. Think of Charlemagne like Tywin Lannister. Like you said he also started the Carolingian renaissance and he WAS undefeated in battle because the battle you mentioned was technically an ambush and he didn’t command the army, he was already far ahead. It was his knights that held the rear and even if it counted it would only be one loss.
Not only that, but speaking of lasting impacts, he is the direct descendant of the Capetian and Habsburg houses which spread from his Karling dynasty and so in the process of intricately planning the success of his Karling dynasty he advanced all the houses linked to it including the Capetians and later the Habsburgs. He was the master of Europe. He essentially was responsible for every thing that happened in Europe after him and the name Karling still held power even after their fall from grace in around the 12th century and to marry one of the surviving strands of such a prestigious house was considered an immense gift.
I would not even say that the karlings died out. I think that the dynasty just changed name. It all stemmed from the greatest and most effective ruler of a dynasty, Charlemagne.
Dude, u r all over the place. Why r Alfred, Stephen, and Otto even in a discussion with Temujin, Cyrus, Alexander, and Constantine?
These 'great' appellations are mainly from church historians and reflect good relations with the church, but not much else (see Alfred and canute).
Half these guys weren't even called great. So is it a 'greats' list or just people ur impressed with. Like Temujin. His title is Genghis Khan, which is loosely translated as 'universal leader', not 'the great'.
The Codex Justianian has had little impact today and western law has more roots in the Germania law codes not the Roman.
U gotta have some standards or read more. Xerxes is not so great, but Adolphus is great? Adolphus was not undefeated and did not win the 30 years war. Even the label of father of modern warfare is in dispute. So, in a war that the hapsburgs arguably won, how is he great but no hapsburg or Spanish king is on this list?
And Frederick. Oh, Frederick. Give me a break. Did he found Prussia? No. Did he unify Germany? No. Did he even become the emperor? No. So, why is he great?
And pharaohs? Ramesses is not the top. That belongs to Tutmoses Ii or III, with a kingdom that stretched to Mesopotamia.
If ur going to pull in Temujin into tiers then why not Qin Huang Di? The Chinese had to invent a title because no one even had unified China before.
Personally, I don't consider mass murderers "great", so none of these guys get that label. But my top conquerors list would be Temujin, Cyrus, Alexander, Napoleon, Tamerlane, Caesar, Tutmoses, Qin Huang Di, Nader Shah, Oda Nabunaga, Philip II, Catherine, and Sulieman.
Why is Cyrus so loved?
Shapur the great of the Persians?captured the Roman emperor, that’s pretty gangster.
Cyrus is the greatest
none of these guys have abolished slavery
Some leaders that i think should have made the list are: Shapur II The Great(Sassanian Empire), Casimir III (of Poland), Mithridates II (of Parthia), Herod The Great, Hugh Capet (Magnus), Antiochus III (Seleucid Empire), Tigranes The Great (Armenia), Vladimir The Great (Kievan Rus), Sejong the Great (Korean, Joseon Dynasty).. and some honorable mentions that weren't typically referred to as "the Great" but still should make the list, are: Sargon of Akkad, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Nebuchadnezzar II (Babylonian Empire), and my personal favorite- Emperor Trajan, who was referred to as "OPTIMO PRINCEPS", which basically means "The Best Prince" or "The Optimum Ruler/Emperor"
no stephen the great of moldavia/romania ? 😢