Most overated leader in history.

Tman1,

Well it looks as though we’ve abandoned the decidedly ill-advised sojourn into examining the Henry VIII and Louis XIV’s historical legacies. I’m hoping you’ve got something historical to keep this thread going. PDT_Armataz_01_34

I think people misconstrue the meaning of "overrated" and "leader". Was Henry VIII a great leader? Hmm maybe not, he did separate the Church into the English Church just so he could "legitimize" his divorce to Catherine. Who even said Henry VIII was even a leader? What did he do to "lead" England? Does being part of the Monarchy even mean they have to be a leader? Is Prince Charles a leader even though he is next in line to be King? I think not. You know what an overrated Leader was? Richard I(lion heart) who did not even give a rats ass about England (how long was he even in England during his entire reign?) and the people of England hail him as a "great" hero (I think they even have monuments for him) and he was pretty anti-Jewish. Did he personaly lead England? Was Richard I a great leader? Sure, overrated? IMO.

Tman1,

Unlike the interlopers who constantly hijack this thread, you offer some history as evidence in your thread (and you won’t get into some intellectually juvenile game of debating its objectivity)

Henry was indeed a leader – how he arrived at his monarchical post is somewhat immaterial (how many leaders before the Enlightenment achieved political supremacy through democratic or popular means?). What he did while he occupied it and how this impacted history is much more important.

Many historians consider Henry VIII as one of the finest monarchs in English history. He was an able diplomat (Holy League), keen domestic administrator, political pragmatist (Act of Supremacy and the Act against Papal Authority) and he set in motion religious events (Anglican Church) that would see England emerge as a military power, intellectual centre (Scientific Revolution) and defender of the Protestant faith.

Tman,

I fully understand the justifications for conducting a detailed historiographical examination of sources, but that isn’t always the issue here. Let me explain - the thread asks for overrated leaders in history. That implies that these individuals have received allegedly misguided praise from their contemporaries and their chroniclers. That much is clear. Furthermore, if one offers up a potential “overrated” leader then they should demonstrate how history has mistakenly elevated this person’s historical legacy. Why are they overestimated? What are they achievements and how has significance been misinterpreted or embellished? Is that easy? No, but that shouldn’t be a deterrence. It merely demands that the poster (who freely participates) back up their choice with some semblance of relevant and accurate history.

Secondly, whether someone likes that individual or not can be largely irrelevant. Prefacing comments with, “I don’t like Mary Tudor” and then leaving it at that does nothing to add to the thread nor should its intellectual simplicity be left unchallenged. If you can demonstrate that a particular individual’s status is unfairly elevated due to their charisma or good looks and little else in terms of historical impact, now you’ve got something. But to suggest that Napoleon was an overrated military leader because he was short in stature and then respond to the inevitable challenge of Austerlitz with “What’s Austerlitz?”. Come on.

Lastly, your example of Richard I is interesting. Do you think that he might qualify for “overrated”?

I'd (humbly) nominate the pharaohs of the Old Kingdom as a group (those responsible for the pyramids). Overrated in the sense that they represent almost all popular knowledge of Ancient Egypt, while contributing little to present day culture, other than pretty graveyard artifacts. The construction of the pyramids occupied the resources of a civilization for almost half a century, merely to satisfy the egos of supposedly deific pharaohs.

Lily,

Wow, not only did you botch it with Henry VIII, but you also totally disowned yourself form botching it with your "Shakespeare" nerdy response.

This is why you command zero respect. Own up to your actions.

I can't believe you just stated that the founder of the Anglican church was overrated. Jesus Pimple On His Ass Christ.

He had a crush on Anne Boelyn? THAT'S your historical analysis of Henry VIII's decision to seek a divorce from Catherine of Aragon? The major reason was he had a crush?

That is the most juevenile explanation for the formation of the Anglican Church during the Reformation. Brilliant.

Don't you read your own posts? Didn't you read what you wrote and realized that you just attributed a pivotal moment in European history to a goddamn whim?

Jesus Lakota Christ!

First of all this isn't a court of law... It isn't up to my burden of proof in debating whether the sun king and henry the 8th were in fact over rated.... The Thread is Most over rated leaders in history..... What are you going to say now.. defence rests the "burden of proof has not been ascertained" If you believe these two were not over rated that give me the reasons. WHY they weren't not tright little snipettes.. "like I don't have to make your arguement for you". If you believe that the Henry the 8th and Louis the 14th weren't over rated then give me proof why they werren't......

As stated over and over in my threads.. I believe that ALL Human MONARCHY IS OVER RATED. That goes all the way back to pre recordered history. Yes some did great things, but on the whole they are all over rated.. they have lived the lives they live off the backs of their people.. just becuase they were born to Nobility... How Noble is it to Kill your brother to Achieve power.. how Noble is it to premote yourself and your families name when the kings lineage ends and a successor has to be named at all costs

... Cromwell is still by the way turning in his grave over the fact that the british people reinstituted the monarchy and brought Charles the second back to sit on the throne after the death of cromwells son.
And when Cromwell finally defeated Charles.. to lead England into a time without the monarchy ( as france and Russia did hundreds of years later) the people of Britian wanted to name him King... Why Don't they get it... You don't need a monarch or the Monarchy...

we in Canada don't need a Governer General.. We Don't need visits by the Royal family.. we should have a national referendum on this topic... we should remain part of the commonwealth becuase of our historical links to britian but we should dispose of the wasteful position of Governor general.. we should also remove any vestiges of the royals as well. We are our own country and not unser soveriegn rule anymore.

Yes they are very nice people... But who really cares about them... They are millionaires.. becuase of the oppression of people for thousands of years. They fart or do something stupid.. and the media portrays them as "just like us"... well guess what they are just like us.. just highly over rated.

THIS IS MY PERSONAL BELIEF... they were all over rated my proof is in not only recorded history of every monarch.. as I said many did good and wonderful things.. but for the most part.. thier greatest goal was self promotion of themselves and of thoier Royal lineage... that is why I believe they are.. OVER RATED.

This is my last post on this topic unless someone wants to tell me why Monarchs and the Monarchy are not over rated.......

The use of the lords name in veign not once but twice.....dayseed I guess suggests that you believe that Christ was Over rated....