Most powerful ruler(s) of all time?

[Palatinus Germanicus]

Imagine a (potentially skewed) bell curve, where on one end of the spectrum you have a ruler of the most powerful realm ever (economically & militarily, tech, etc.) but he himself is nothing more than a puppet to the bureaucrats. Then on the other end you have a warlord or some small tribal region, who has total, absolute despotic power over every aspect of life within his borders. He can say, "this man shall die today"... and all his subjects stoically carry out his orders, without any dissent or question.

Alright, so who in history had the heaviest balance, of both ends of the spectrum? I guess you could categorize these as 'realm power' and 'personal/ruler power', maybe. But you get the idea... we want as much as possible of both, at the same time. So who are the candidates?

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

I'd say we don't know enough about ancient rulers to say. E.g. Sargon of Akkad may have ruled over much of what was then the civilized world. How strong his rule was internally is almost anyone's guess.

 

[King_of_Spain]

How about Stalin? Specifically in, say, 1950.

On the one hand, the Soviet Union was one of two global superpowers with nuclear weapons by 1949, an army of almost 6m people, direct control over Eastern and Central Europe and indirect influence over other communist-aligned nations around the world. Undeniably ticks the “realm power” box.

And on the other hand, his cult of personality and complete paranoia meant he was pretty much in control of it. Killing every one of your political opponents is one thing, and killjng those you suspect may one day become your opponents is another... also worth bearing in mind Stalin rose to power over Trotsky and others partly because he began as Party Secretary, meaning he had deep-rooted access to and control of the bureacratic machinery, and controlled the flow of information.

What do you reckon?

 

[Arilou]

How about Stalin? Specifically in, say, 1950.

That was my first thought.

 

[krieger11b]

Mao managed to kill a huge portion of his population like Stalin. Mao managed to do more of it with incompetence than intention than Stalin did and his orders were still followed.

Pol Pot managed to do what I don't recall any other person ever doing, forcing most of his city dwelling people people into the countryside to work in the fields, then later sent to the killing fields. Not sure if this sole accomplishment had more to do with no one else with that much power thinking something that stupid was a good idea, or because of his sheer power over the psychopathic people he was in charge of.

Mao did once I know of send a lot of educated to the fields temporary to remind/show them what peasantry was like, but he didn't depopulate entire cities.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Imagine a (potentially skewed) bell curve, where on one end of the spectrum you have a ruler of the most powerful realm ever (economically & militarily, tech, etc.) but he himself is nothing more than a puppet to the bureaucrats. Then on the other end you have a warlord or some small tribal region, who has total, absolute despotic power over every aspect of life within his borders. He can say, "this man shall die today"... and all his subjects stoically carry out his orders, without any dissent or question.

Alright, so who in history had the heaviest balance, of both ends of the spectrum? I guess you could categorize these as 'realm power' and 'personal/ruler power', maybe. But you get the idea... we want as much as possible of both, at the same time. So who are the candidates?

"as much as possible of both at the same time"

So basically you are asking, which ruler had at his disposal means to order the deaths of the greatest number of people with the least amount interference by his governing apparatus? Is that the metric?

If so, any of the US presidents since 1945 basically.

(The soviet chairmen don't even compete since after Stalins death they shared power in a collective body without giving it to an individual the way executive power in the US does.)

 

[King_of_Spain]

"as much as possible of both at the same time"

So basically you are asking, which ruler had at his disposal means to order the deaths of the greatest number of people with the least amount interference by his governing apparatus? Is that the metric?

If so, any of the US presidents since 1945 basically.

(The soviet chairmen don't even compete since after Stalins death they shared power in a collective body without giving it to an individual the way executive power in the US does.)

I agree with you on the Soviets post-Stalin but not really the USA, given they are answerable to the electorate, the Supreme Court and Congress, all of which have means of varying power and formality of removing him from office or at least blocking his actions.

I guess if you mean simply ordering deaths then... perhaps? Given they have nuclear codes and so on. But I took the question more to mean ruling according to personal whim than literally just carrying out genocide or dropping a nuke.

 

[JodelDiplom]

I agree with you on the Soviets post-Stalin but not really the USA, given they are answerable to the electorate, the Supreme Court and Congress, all of which have means of varying power and formality of removing him from office or at least blocking his actions.

I guess if you mean simply ordering deaths then... perhaps? Given they have nuclear codes and so on. But I took the question more to mean ruling according to personal whim than literally just carrying out genocide or dropping a nuke.

No one ever ruled "according to whim"

Even the most absolute rulers are inseparably linked to the communities they rule over and feel feedback over each and every one of their decisions.

What you might be looking for is a metric that says which ruler would still exercise control despite his wants and wishes being 180° opposed to everyone around him. That would probably point you to some tyrants of antiquity who ruled their communities through mercenary violence.

 

[Fornadan]

The American president can't even get the courts to rule consistently in his favour

 

[King_of_Spain]

No one ever ruled "according to whim"

Even the most absolute rulers are inseparably linked to the communities they rule over and feel feedback over each and every one of their decisions.

What you might be looking for is a metric that says which ruler would still exercise control despite his wants and wishes being 180° opposed to everyone around him. That would probably point you to some tyrants of antiquity who ruled their communities through mercenary violence.

Sure, and I reckon Stalin fits the tyrants of antiquity mould pretty well, personality-wise, but he also had control of the second largest military in the world and so fits the other metric.

Even then I dunno, I might say “whim” is pretty much the right word for him. Like if he got the feeling someone was plotting against him he would kill them. That’s whim to me, and also fulfils your thing about doing it even if the people around you are opposed. But of course the terminology is subjective so each to their own.

 

[Pyoro]

I'd say some type of ingrained "divine right" is probably the most effective way to create an absolute, tyrannically rule with no opposition. Can't argue with divinity (if it's actually believed). No idea who did it most convincingly, though ^^;

On the low end might be some of the puppet Emperors in China. Often nonetheless powerful state but no say in anything much. Although of course one can argue whether that still counts as "ruler".

 

[King_of_Spain]

I'd say some type of ingrained "divine right" is probably the most effective way to create an absolute, tyrannically rule with no opposition. Can't argue with divinity (if it's actually believed). No idea who did it most convincingly, though ^^;

On the low end might be some of the puppet Emperors in China. Often nonetheless powerful state but no say in anything much. Although of course one can argue whether that still counts as "ruler".

Divine right is really interesting. I don’t know much about it at all either.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Sure, and I reckon Stalin fits the tyrants of antiquity mould pretty well, personality-wise, but he also had control of the second largest military in the world and so fits the other metric.

Even then I dunno, I might say “whim” is pretty much the right word for him. Like if he got the feeling someone was plotting against him he would kill them. That’s whim to me, and also fulfils your thing about doing it even if the people around you are opposed. But of course the terminology is subjective so each to their own.

Stalin doesn't fit the model of a simple tyrant in my view. For one thing, he ruled over a vast continental empire not a small city state. A city state that you can traverse on horse back within a day can be controlled without requiring a sophisticated administration.

A continent spanning empire on the other hand can only controlled if you have an administrative organization of at least 100,000s of people loyal to you. Stalin was the ruler of a huge sophisticated society and he governed out very successfully, engaging sweeping social and economic reforms, defending the country against an all out invasion by the until then most formidable army the modern world had seen, and turning a poor backwards country into a nuclear armed superpower that could look eye to eye with the world's richest, most advanced and most powerful other hegemon.

You don't achieve all of that by just imposing your will arbitrarily on people. You need a gigantic administration, you need scientists and engineers, loyal officers, and you need ideals to which intelligent people can swear undying loyalty without feeling like they are just bowing to a tyrant who holds a gun to their head. Stalin could only impose an arbitrary will on people within very narrow limits. He had a role to play if he wanted to stay at the helm and not be deposed, murdered, sent into involuntary retirement, or be done away with in some other way by the people around him. Those people are for the most part only loyal to him as long as there was no too obvious conflict with their loyalty to the country and the socialist ideals.

Compare that to the cliques that surround a conventional tyrant and are loyal to the tyrant for more immediate reasons - because his rule guarantees their survival, as they have made everyone outside the system their enemy. Tyrants like to surround themselves with foreigners and low, despicable people for that reason - those guys have strong reasons to be loyal to him, everyone else hates them. Read Machiavelli for some ideas.

Now with Stalin on the other hand, when he died, was there a huge massacre of his loyalists? Was there a purge of the administration by his successors? No, only Beria was murdered. Khrushchev only dared to openly condemn Stalin's methods years after Stalin was dead. That gives you a hint on how strongly Stalin had relied on people's loyalty to the country and to socialism instead of just to his person.

 

[XYN]

Stalin doesn't fit the model of a simple tyrant in my view. For one thing, he ruled over a vast continental empire not a snack city state. A city state that you can traverse on horse back within a day can be controlled without requiring a sophisticated administration. A continent spanning empire on the other hand can only controlled if you have an administrative organization of at least 100,000s of people loyal to you. Stalin was the ruler of a huge sophisticated society and he governed out very successfully, engaging sweeping social and economic reforms, defending the country against an all out invasion by the until then most formidable army the modern world had seen, and turning a poor backwards country into a nuclear armed superpower that could look eye to eye with the world's richest, most advanced and most powerful other hegemon.

You don't achieve all of that by just imposing your will arbitrarily on people. You need a gigantic administration, you need scientists and engineers, loyal officers, and you need ideals to which intelligent people can swear undying loyalty without feeling like they are just bowing to a tyrant who holds a gun to their head.

Yeah, even various NKVD orders were worded in a way to ensure that everyone understands that the executed/repressed ones are the bad guys. There was a lot of effort to make sure that everyone knows the Chief of the People and his efforts in leading to the bright socialist future despite all the efforts of the enemies of the Proletariat to hinder it.

If I recall correctly, the attitude of Greek tyrants was quite less sophisticated.

 

[DarthJF]

Genghis and Kublai Khan probably rank pretty high on that list.

 

[King_of_Spain]

Stalin doesn't fit the model of a simple tyrant in my view. For one thing, he ruled over a vast continental empire not a small city state. A city state that you can traverse on horse back within a day can be controlled without requiring a sophisticated administration.

A continent spanning empire on the other hand can only controlled if you have an administrative organization of at least 100,000s of people loyal to you. Stalin was the ruler of a huge sophisticated society and he governed out very successfully, engaging sweeping social and economic reforms, defending the country against an all out invasion by the until then most formidable army the modern world had seen, and turning a poor backwards country into a nuclear armed superpower that could look eye to eye with the world's richest, most advanced and most powerful other hegemon.

You don't achieve all of that by just imposing your will arbitrarily on people. You need a gigantic administration, you need scientists and engineers, loyal officers, and you need ideals to which intelligent people can swear undying loyalty without feeling like they are just bowing to a tyrant who holds a gun to their head. Stalin could only impose an arbitrary will on people within very narrow limits. He had a role to play if he wanted to stay at the helm and not be deposed, murdered, sent into involuntary retirement, or be done away with in some other way by the people around him. Those people are for the most part only loyal to him as long as there was no too obvious conflict with their loyalty to the country and the socialist ideals.

Compare that to the cliques that surround a conventional tyrant and are loyal to the tyrant for more immediate reasons - because his rule guarantees their survival, as they have made everyone outside the system their enemy. Tyrants like to surround themselves with foreigners and low, despicable people for that reason - those guys have strong reasons to be loyal to him, everyone else hates them. Read Machiavelli for some ideas.

Now with Stalin on the other hand, when he died, was there a huge massacre of his loyalists? Was there a purge of the administration by his successors? No, only Beria was murdered. Khrushchev only dared to openly condemn Stalin's methods years after Stalin was dead. That gives you a hint on how strongly Stalin had relied on people's loyalty to the country and to socialism instead of just to his person.

None of what you’re saying is wrong, in fact I agree with you, except I think your argument about the hundreds of thousands of people under him is circular. You say Stalin didn’t have that much personal power because he needed the loyalty of these people and this framework but then also acknowledge that he did have it. So where’s the distinction? I’d also argue that because he had this loyalty, he was able to carry out policies that were horrendously ineffective - Lysenkoism and collectivisation being good examples, rather than the ones you describe as effective.



As for this loyalty to the state, I think the most interesting aspect of that is the event to which he himself became the state. The cult of personality that he managed to establish was so extensive that Stalin and the state (again, I hasten to emphasize that I am talking about him in 1950) were inextricable. And the destalinization that you’re correct to mention, I would argue, served the equivalent purpose of those massacres you mention - a cathartic, collective relief and the actions of a society expressing that it is no longer dominated by - terrified by - a single personality.



Machiavelli, if I recall correctly from when I read him as an undergraduate, famously distinguishes between hatred and fear. You write about the hatred of those surrounding the classical tyrants, and again, rightly so (I’m thinking specifically here of Dionysius of Syracuse, but only because I read The Mask of Apollo fairly recently. Correct me if wrong). But I would point to the absolute fear of Stalin, of his unpredictability, as the reason for his control. He is actually a really good example of someone Machiavelli would hold up as a successful tyrant.



Also please note that I’m not arguing that your example of those tyrants is incorrect by any means; I’m just arguing that Stalin is also a good answer to OP’s initial question.

 

[JodelDiplom]

None of what you’re saying is wrong, in fact I agree with you, except I think your argument about the hundreds of thousands of people under him is circular. You say Stalin didn’t have that much personal power because he needed the loyalty of these people and this framework but then also acknowledge that he did have it. So where’s the distinction? I’d also argue that because he had this loyalty, he was able to carry out policies that were horrendously ineffective - Lysenkoism and collectivisation being good examples, rather than the ones you describe as effective.



As for this loyalty to the state, I think the most interesting aspect of that is the event to which he himself became the state. The cult of personality that he managed to establish was so extensive that Stalin and the state (again, I hasten to emphasize that I am talking about him in 1950) were inextricable. And the destalinization that you’re correct to mention, I would argue, served the equivalent purpose of those massacres you mention - a cathartic, collective relief and the actions of a society expressing that it is no longer dominated by - terrified by - a single personality.



Machiavelli, if I recall correctly from when I read him as an undergraduate, famously distinguishes between hatred and fear. You write about the hatred of those surrounding the classical tyrants, and again, rightly so (I’m thinking specifically here of Dionysius of Syracuse, but only because I read The Mask of Apollo fairly recently. Correct me if wrong). But I would point to the absolute fear of Stalin, of his unpredictability, as the reason for his control. He is actually a really good example of someone Machiavelli would hold up as a successful tyrant.



Also please note that I’m not arguing that your example of those tyrants is incorrect by any means; I’m just arguing that Stalin is also a good answer to OP’s initial question.

You are completely right to say that depending on one's definition of "power", Stalin was a hugely powerful man. He certainly had a lot more room for "whim" than, say, a US president. He probably had the power (factual not legal) to arbitrarily order the death of any person in the USSR and not face much resistance from his administration. If that's the metric then he wins

What I wanted to say was that while Stalin had the power over death and life, his "whim" wasn't absolute since the complexity of the system he had created demanded he follow the system's own rules. People around him weren't loyal to him exclusively, all least most weren't. They would not have followed him had he done a 180 on established major policies, or openly defied the ideals of socialism. While you could probably expect some of the famous tyrants who used pure violence to have been less constrained by ideals and policies.

(In a sense, isn't every halfway successful ruler going to constrain himself like that? People will in general put up much less resistance if there is some constancy in government, rather than total arbitrariness.)

 

[krieger11b]

It seemed like Roman Emperors also could order people executed without even bothering with a show trial often. Caligula did that a lot, until someone found the list with their name on before Caligula sent out the list and was killed via knife to the groin.

I mean even Stalin made an effort to make show trials and/or forced/faked confessions. Most of the executions without trials I believe were done without direct orders by local NKVD, like during the Holodomor the NKVD would often shoot Ukrainians for not looking like they were starving enough, assuming they must be hiding food.

 

[DukeDayve]

It seemed like Roman Emperors also could order people executed without even bothering with a show trial often. Caligula did that a lot, until someone found the list with their name on before Caligula sent out the list and was killed via knife to the groin.

I mean even Stalin made an effort to make show trials and/or forced/faked confessions. Most of the executions without trials I believe were done without direct orders by local NKVD, like during the Holodomor the NKVD would often shoot Ukrainians for not looking like they were starving enough, assuming they must be hiding food.

From a lot of the reading on Roman emperors I've done it seems like they only had absolute power once the military became the body that selected emperors. Sure psychopaths like Caligula, Nero, Domitian and Commodus acted like... psychopaths, often for a decade at a time, there was usually resistance from governors/generals/senate/people.

Then after Commodus when the army starts to pick the emperor they are basically untethered to do whatever they like, provided they keep on paying the army and raising their wages regularly. Seems like this is where Rome became an army with a state, where before it had been a state with an army.

Then of course some genius decided the army should be made almost entirely from enemy tribes who had been settled in the empire, and at that point the emperors were puppets of whatever chief of whatever tribe held the most power at that point, who beheaded the empire and picked a new one when he stopped being useful lol.

 

[krieger11b]

Then of course some genius decided the army should be made almost entirely from enemy tribes who had been settled in the empire, and at that point the emperors were puppets of whatever chief of whatever tribe held the most power at that point, who beheaded the empire and picked a new one when he stopped being useful lol.

There were puppet Emperors of the Germanic tribes? Which ones? Late Roman history gets a little murky since not only was not built in a day, it wasn't destroyed in one day either. It seemed to die a slow death that was mostly of their own doing.