Who was the most powerful singular person in history?

Hm... Thanks. IIRC i read that it's the norm that the monarch doesn't exercise it. Thanks for giving me an example of an exception.

This.

>this ebin meem again
The British were the most influential country on earth from 1830-1900

We pushed China, Russia, Ottomans and France around.

First gratitude to me in this board)

When are you imagining the Britain pushed France and Russia around? I'm guessing the Fashoda incident for France but that was ultimately fairly minor and had a lot to do with France's relationship with Germany and France and Britain had a generally decent relationship in this period. Britain hardly pushed Russia around in the great game and the Crimean war was a very French endeavour.

The Ottoman Empire was the sick man of Europe and China was a fucking joke that ended up making concessions to any power that sneezed at it.

Not disagreeing that Britain was probably the most influential country 1830-1900 but they weren't all powerful like some britbong national history wankers seem to believe. It was a period of concerts between powers, not just Britain swinging their dick in everyone's faces. Probably if the UK was matched 1 on 1 with any European power the UK would have performed pretty well due to their naval dominance (and they flexed these muscles in situations like threatening the Germans over the Boer war), but facing down the same sort of odds as Napoleon would probably have spelled a different story.

You're welcome

Mind providing a source for this?

>fashoda incident
That, but not only this.

Napoleon III needed British support in the crimean war, and france fell apart when britain chose not to supoort it against prussia. France barely industrialized and fell behind in population behind Britain, so britain naturally became the dominant partner in the alliance.

A Good example for Russia was during the Russo-Japanese war, they paid Britain huge amounts of money to not sink their fleet, and when the royal navy acted hostile to russia, russia did not retaliate because they knew they couldn't allow britain to get involved

crimean war too, Britain demanded massive concessions after the war there.The Great game is also an example too. russia was careful to not expand too much as they feared angering britain.

To show just how weak russia was, just look at their war with japan. pathetic.

Stalin might be a decent candidate with the force the Soviet Union mobilised by the end of WW2, plus nukes, plus the fact that he actually had pretty much sole dictatorial power over the SU. Though the exhaustion that the war put on the SU might also be factored in.

It's kind of unfair in a way to talk about the most powerful person in history, because it basically becomes easier as time goes by. Your global reach is gonna be a lot stronger with an air force, nukes, aircraft carriers, etc. than it is with horses and spears.

Cold War or end of cold war U.S. presidents might also be contenders but obviously there's also checks and balances on that singular person's power.

>absolute monarchs
No, just no

France performed far better than Britain in the Crimean War, and was clearly the leader in that one

I'd say probably Stalin, yah.

American presidents, post 1991. No power in human history has been so dominant over the whole globe as the US has been since the end of the Cold War.

Alexander the Great?

Jesus Christ.

>We pushed China
Everyone did, literally

>Russia
France carried you during the Crimean War (which was yet another proof of your powerlessness in Europe)

>and France around.
Dont remember any war between France and Britain in that period
Fact is you were unable to fight any european power without powerful allies (as proved by Crimea and WW1)

Because the British Army was kept small deliberately. It only existed to perform colonial operations. Britain never planned to fight on the continent thanks to their navy.

If you bothered to read my other post you'd know i never relied on crimea for my argument. The Great Game and the Russo Japanese War a much better at showing british influence on russia

>your powerlessness in europe
So i wonder why Bismarck constantly focused his foreign policy on not making an enemy of britain?

>Dont remember any war between France and Britain in that period
If you base influence purely on war you're retarded. There's no war between America and Japan right now. who has more influence over the other?

In addition to what the other user said, yeah Russia fucked up big time in this period. Accounts of the Russian Baltic fleet going to the far east practically reads like a joke.

But as I said the great game was hardly a great success for Britain. The UK didn't get what it set out to get and had to settle with Russia on fairly equal terms, both getting some but not all of what they desired.

>they paid Britain huge amounts of money to not sink their fleet
Could you specify what you're referring you? I'm only aware of compensation for dogger bank

An American president never had the power to murder the entire political, military and industrial elite of the country, or enslave one hundred million people.
Or even lose ten million soldiers in a war then still have complete loyalty.

Okay? How is that a counter-argument? No one denies Britain had a strong navy, but you can't be truly dominant if you're totally weak on land, because, y'know, on land is where people actually live

I've studied constitutional law.

The British monarch has held no real power since the 1689 Glorious Revolution and hasn't exercised what little power they've had left since Queen Mary in the decades after that.

>An American president never had the power to murder the entire political, military and industrial elite of the country, or enslave one hundred million people
They don't need to, and that is the greatest evidence for their power

>Or even lose ten million soldiers in a war then still have complete loyalty.
If the US was invaded in a similar way to the USSR was in June 1941, whoever was President could absolutely lose ten million men and still have complete loyalty

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogger_Bank_incident

I misremembered the shit about payment, my bad. They only paid £66,000 which is around 7 million today. Still, the incident forced Russia to go around the horn of africa

Okay, let's say A country like Germany declares war on Britain, in say 1900.

How is Germany supposed to do anything other than starve?

They can only launch a colonial war that is difficult to send soldiers to. The British Blocakade was disastrous in 1916, it will be disastrous now.

The Only Power that can launch any significant offensive towards Britain is the united States, who can invade Canada. But the British fleet is over twice the size of America's in this period. They can also choke America to a white peace AT MINIMUM thanks to how deadly blockades really are. War is just as important in sea as on land for Britain.

how is this even a question........desu...

..this

>They don't need to, and that is the greatest evidence for their power
You don't think they would get impeached if they tried that shit?

I think you're right on the second point though.

Conversely, Britain wouldn't be able to do shit to Germany in this scenario either. If it's just the UK vs. Germany, the blockade would not have been as effective at all, as Germany could still trade with its neighbors. So it would just be a stalemate, no victory for either side.

>You don't think they would get impeached if they tried that shit?
Of course they would, but they don't need to try it to be powerful, which is just further evidence for my point.

If they actually can't do it they don't have the power to do it which literally means they're less powerful

>but they don't need to try it to be powerful
What is the US presidents power?

So? They don't need to do it to be the most powerful people to ever exist

Yes they do. Read the OP.

Germany can't really on trade exclusively from Europe. They need imports from China and The US by sea.

The fact is, the Navy meant britain was an impenetrable fortress.

Now, with a fully mobilized industry and population, after around 4 years, Britain can raise an army at around 2/3'rds the size of Germany's based on population. Let's also factor in soldiers from canada, Australia and India, and Britain can, after a number of years, create an army the same size, if not larger than Germany. After 1871, France would definitely let their army pass through into Germany. This, coupled with navy shellings on northern costal german cities puts Germany in a bad position.

Could Britain force Germany into a peace treaty as bad as Versailles? No. Could Britain create a favourable one? Yes.

>There's no war between America and Japan right now. who has more influence over the other?

Never denied Britain had more influence on the world than France in the 19th century, but it was still far from an hegemon (like for exemple what the US currently are)

Leading the world's only hyperpower, which is more dominant over the globe than any other country in human history?

Stalin was far less powerful than Barack Obama is today

How can he be the most powerful person in history if he can't even do what he wants?

He only leads it as far as people allow him to.

The US today is more powerful than the USSR was.
Obama cannot radically change the political, economical or social structure of the US in the same way that Stalin did.
He could not, tomorrow, totally abolish private property in the country side, for example.

but the us aren't a hegemon though

the only places america has influence over are japan, western europe and south america

britain had influence over china, america, india, the ottoman empire and parts of europe

Though america today is far higher in milutary strength, britain had far more economic and trade strength. the entire seven fucking seas was britain's mare nostrum

>Germany can't really on trade exclusively from Europe. They need imports from China and The US by sea.
Depends on how you define "need". They would definitely be hurting, but they would not collapse.

You realize that the blockade during WWI harmed Britain significantly too as well, right? It basically lost it's dominant position in world trade.

>Now, with a fully mobilized industry and population, after around 4 years, Britain can raise an army at around 2/3'rds the size of Germany's based on population. Let's also factor in soldiers from canada, Australia and India, and Britain can, after a number of years, create an army the same size, if not larger than Germany.
This involves some highly debatable assumptions. Britain was never able to mobilize on a per capita level equal to France or Germany due to its traditions of a volunteer army, those won't just disappear. The British soldiers would be qualitatively inferior to the German ones as well.

>After 1871, France would definitely let their army pass through into German
The argument is if they could win without help from any other country, and now you are relying on France helping them. Without anyone else, they would have to invade Germany on its own coasts, which would be a very tricky proposition.

>britbongs who have played too much Victoria 2 will never go away

George Washington

The point is no US President wants to do that. Anyway, Stalin couldn't do everything that he wanted in 1945 either.

Like literally every other leader in history, then?

>the entire seven fucking seas was britain's mare nostrum
This is true of the US right now

>You realize that the blockade during WWI harmed Britain significantly too as well, right? It basically lost it's dominant position in world trade.
Yeah, it's expensive, but we're arguing if britain had dominance over other powers in europe

> Britain was never able to mobilize on a per capita level equal to France or Germany due to its traditions of a volunteer army, those won't just disappear.
It kinda did though. Britain never had a proper war after the crimea until 1914, and introduced conscription in 1916.

It'll need years to gather all those troops from the commonwealth, but with extensive indian help, they can outnumber the germans 3 to 1

>The argument is if they could win without help from any other country, and now you are relying on France helping them. Without anyone else, they would have to invade Germany on its own coasts, which would be a very tricky proposition.
France would only give them military access, not be allies.

>The point is no US President wants to do that.
Yes they do, what do you think Obama wanted to do in 2008, and look at what he did. Its a joke.
If Stalin wanted something it happened, often disastrously but it happened. Because the entire power and function of the state (army, secret police, diplomacy, courts, etc) were concentrated ultimately in his self.

>The point is no US President wants to do that.
That's not the point. The question is who had the most power. Being the figurehead for the most powerful country in the world doesn't make you the most powerful person in the world.

>Anyway, Stalin couldn't do everything that he wanted in 1945 either.
The things we've mentioned are literally the kinds of things that Stalin did prior to WW2. There's no fucking chance that a U.S. president could do the same things, especially in peace time.

>Like literally every other leader in history, then?
Now you're just being disingenuous

Paul Warfield Tibbets Jr.

Yeah, ok.

How many cities has Stalin single-handedly destroyed in an instant?

I was agreeing with you.

>Yeah, it's expensive, but we're arguing if britain had dominance over other powers in europe
It's important because it would lead Britain to look for a compromise peace

>It kinda did though
No, it really didn't. Over the course of WWI, the entire British Empire mobilized less men than Germany alone (a little under 9 million versus a little more than 13 million).

In addition, the size of the British Empire is a a liability as well as an asset. They can't just move all their men to Europe, they have to keep their colonies garrisoned in case France or Russia or anyone else should try and take advantage of their preoccupation with Germany.

And keep in these years of mobilizing men, the British economy is hurting, with no visible gains. You don't think the public would clamor for peace?

>France would only give them military access, not be allies.
Real life isn't a video game. Letting a country march millions of men across your territory is equivalent to being on that country's side.

oh, my bad.

If your argument is that Stalin was more powerful within the USSR than the American President is within the US today, then obviously you are right. But he was far less powerful worldwide. His reach only extended to the USSR and areas immediately bordering it. Meanwhile the US can project it's power anywhere in the world.

Any city that has a slav population has already been destroyed

>France would only give them military access, not be allies.
This isn't a fucking video game where a country just grants another one military access and the armies move across the land without disturbing a flower. Total war is a major undertaking and France would actually have to dedicate its infrastructure and other resources for the UK to be able do anything like the sort of operation that invading Germany through France would be. The sheer clumsiness of the time's infrastructure is one of the contributing factors to WW1 developing the way it did.

It's to the extent that France might as well join the war, because the Germans probably wouldn't want to just sit by and let France be a safe haven for the Brits either.

Though I agree with you that Britain > Germany in 1900 in a 1 on 1. Germany would be able to do rather little while Britain would fuck with Germany's imports/exports. Germany probably could get around it, but it'd be expensive and awkward.

>Being the figurehead for the most powerful country in the world doesn't make you the most powerful person in the world.
The US President is far more than a figurehead. He may not be omnipotent, but being the leader of the most powerful country in world history, even if your power isn't absolute, is better than being the absolute dictator of a country that was far less powerful.

>The things we've mentioned are literally the kinds of things that Stalin did prior to WW2. There's no fucking chance that a U.S. president could do the same things, especially in peace time.
Okay? And there are tons of things the US president can do today, that Stalin could never even hope to do. Stalin could never hope to invade a country that was as far away from the USSR as Iraq or Afghanistan is from the United States. Stalin did not exercise nearly as much influence over the global economy as the US President's policies can today. Stalin's navy could not dominate every sea in the world. And so on.

>So i wonder why Bismarck constantly focused his foreign policy on not making an enemy of britain?
He didn't?

>No, it really didn't. Over the course of WWI, the entire British Empire mobilized less men than Germany alone (a little under 9 million versus a little more than 13 million).

7/10 british empire soldiers in ww1 were from britain. around 6/10 from england. They only introduced conscription in Britain. They had only 2 years of conscription. Ww1 is no demonstration of what a fully mobilised british empire looks like. Will it cause Revolts? probably. But the numbers needed to contain this VS the numbers needed to outnumber germany come out in Britain's favour. Revolts don't do much good either when all your able bodied men are on a different continent.

>And keep in these years of mobilizing men, the British economy is hurting, with no visible gains. You don't think the public would clamor for peace?

Britain didn't really on Germany for any particular resource. A large amount of unpopularity from war comes from a lack of morale and major losses of soldiers. Neither would be present in a war against Germany until the British actually land.

Your point about France is fair. So let's suppose for some reason France tells Britain its staying neutral. The Royal navy pounds the coastal German cities to dust.

A Coastal landing is gonna be difficult, but the German empire basically covers all of the southern baltic sea. With massive artillery support from ships, It's not out of the question.

Germany was basically the most powerful country in continental europe, so it makes sense this'll be a hard war for Britain

>figurehead

US Presidents are commander-in-chief of the military. They get the nuclear launch codes and also can do things like federalize a state's national guard.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_National_Guard_and_the_integration_of_Central_High_School

>The Royal navy pounds the coastal German cities to dust.
Just like they did in WW1 when Germany wasn't distracted by a myriad of other fronts.

>Ww1 is no demonstration of what a fully mobilised british empire looks like
Really? Because they struggled mightily even to reach that level, it's highly doubtful they could do much more.

>Revolts don't do much good either when all your able bodied men are on a different continent.
Pure video game logic. You can't just move all the able bodied men in India to Europe. Even logistically, this is an impossibility. The Royal Navy was strong, but maintaining a close blockade, bombing the German coast, and moving millions of men from all around the world to Britain are beyond even it's capacities.

>Britain didn't really on Germany for any particular resource. A large amount of unpopularity from war comes from a lack of morale and major losses of soldiers. Neither would be present in a war against Germany until the British actually land.
Let me clear: in the scenario you are proposing, the British economy would be absolutely fucked. The amount of resources it would require to mobilize all these men, move them thousands of miles, equip them all, keep up the blockade, and then move all these millions to land in Germany (through the Danish narrows too) will require so much of the British economy, very little will be left over for civilian purposes. Not to mention, with the Royal Navy otherwise engaged, it cannot be defending Britain's commercial interests all around the world, so the British share of global trade is going to start dropping rapidly, like it did IRL, but even more so.

If Britain took 4 years to defeat Germany (and only narrowily) when it had France, Russia, Italy, the United States, and a host of other countries as Allies (while the Germans only had minor Allies that were more liabilities than assets), how do you think they're going to do it all alone? You keep saying it will take "years": how many? Obviously far more than 4. We're talking at least a decade here. Do you realize the economic strain of full military mobilization for this long?

yeah, i admit you win here. I didn't consider logistics.

That said, Germany can do fuck all against britain themselves other than fight a guerilla war in africa. Britain can fuck with imports and exports or shell german cities.

The blockade was horrible for germany in ww1. people were starving by 1918.

If anything, Bismarck was focused on trying not to be enemies with Russia and France at the same time. He didn't really care about Britain as none of Germany's interests conflicted with those of Britain.

>I didn't consider logistics
It's okay, you were probably possessed by Erwin Rommel.

>That said, Germany can do fuck all against britain themselves other than fight a guerilla war in africa. Britain can fuck with imports and exports or shell german cities
I don't deny it. I never said Germany would win, just that Britain wouldn't. The thing is, fucking with Germany would fuck with Britain too. The likely result is a pretty boring stalemate and then a compromise peace.

Donald J. Trump

Mostly on keeping France isolate and both Austria-Hungary and Russia on side. He wanted to avoid conflict with Britain, but he still succumbed to domestic pressures to get colonies in the 1880s which did peev the British a little, showing that British opinions were definitely not his first priority. It was actually Bismarck's successor, Caprivi, who tried the hardest to get good with the UK (something that is often ignored, but it was the main reason he told Russia to fuck off)

Eve.
For in her bosom bore she the race of men.

She also fucked Adam's shit up so there ain't much of an argument here.

It's Stalin. He had essentially full control of the second most powerful state in human history, with a power probably more penetrating than any other autocrat's

Can Obama send anyone he wants to Gulags? Can he order mass executions? Does he control the daily lives of half of the world and kill people if they stray out of line?

Yes, yes, and yes

But Obama has a gulag in Cuba...

For terrorists. The Supreme Court and checks and balances keep him in line. He can't just implement new laws or kill whoever he wants to.

The Queen uses her powers far more often then the public knows. It's kept quiet because these days we expect the Monarch to be nothing more then a tourist attraction but that couldn't be further from the truth

The queen excercises her power with the consent of the people and is extremely careful about which powers she uses

If she oversteps her bounds it will end the monarchy

A war was fought over this

Of course but she does use her powers regularly. Most of it is actually just refusing bills due to wording, loop holes etc which are then corrected and presented to her again. While stuff like that would rarely be made public it's still a very important role. Also just a couple of years ago parliament tried to take away her ability to declare wars which she blocked and that one actually made the news which is quite rare

Stalin said they were all wreckers and fifth columnists

This.
Relative to the world at the time , no one else comes close when you put it in perspective

Though his kingdom was mostly just the Persian Empire + Greece

How about Genghis?

i Agree my fellow mongol
We need all the celestial insurance to keep him safe!
PRAY YOU FILTHY HERETICS

Dick Cheney

George Bush Sr. if we aren't memeing here.

Pic related by the end of the month.

You're so unbelievably wrong

t. Law Student

The President of the United States, at any given moment. However, if you want to talk relative power to the world at the time: Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Julius Ceaser, and George the 3rd come to mind

Yeah but he personally picked and chose who to kill and no one kept him in check or balance. Beria was always happy to kill someone.