The story

Fearless- AM 442 - History

Fearless- AM 442 - History

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.


Free from dread. The first Fearless (No. 724) served as a tug in the 4th Naval District during World War I.

The second Fearless (AMC-80) was reclassified YDT-6 (q.v.) on 15 February 1943.

Fearless III
(AM-442: dp. 620, 1. 172'; b. 36'; dr. 10', s. 10 k.;
cpl. 74, a. 1 40 mm.; cl. Agile)

The third Fearlese (AM-442) was launched 11 July 1953 by Higgins, Inc., New Orleans, La.; sponsored by Mrs. A. J. Higgins, Jr., and commissioned 22 September 1954, Lieutenant J. Roberts in command.

With Charleston, S.C., as her home port, Fearless operated through 1960 on training operations, experiments and tests, and in exercises along the coast and in the Caribbean. Every other year from 1955 she sailed to the Mediterranean for duty with the 6th Fleet, joining in NATO exercises and visiting European ports. In the spring of 1966, she conducted joint exercises with ships of the Royal Canadian Navy and through that summer experimented with controllable pitch propellers and mine-counter measures equipment at Charleston and Port Everglades, Fla.

Epidemiology of primary anterior shoulder dislocation requiring closed reduction in Ontario, Canada

Background: There is a lack of high-quality population-based literature describing the epidemiology of primary anterior shoulder dislocation.

Purpose: To (1) calculate the incidence density rate (IDR) of primary anterior shoulder dislocation requiring closed reduction (CR "index event") in the general population and demographic subgroups, and (2) determine the rate of and risk factors for repeat shoulder CR.

Study design: Cohort study (prognosis) Level of evidence, 2.

Methods: All patients who underwent shoulder CR by a physician in Ontario between April 2002 and September 2010 were identified with administrative databases. Exclusion criteria included age <16 and >70 years, posterior dislocation, and prior shoulder dislocation or surgery. Index event IDR was calculated for all populations/subgroups, and IDR comparisons were made. Repeat shoulder CR was sought until September 2012. Risk factors for repeat shoulder CR were identified with a Prentice, Williams, and Peterson proportional hazards model.

Results: There were 20,719 persons (median age, 35 years 74.3% male) who underwent a shoulder CR after a primary anterior shoulder dislocation (23.1/100,000 person-years). The IDR was highest among young males (98.3/100,000 person-years). A total of 3940 (19%) patients underwent repeat shoulder CR after a median of 0.9 years, of which 41.7% were ≤20 years of age. Less than two-thirds of all first repeat shoulder CR events occurred within 2 years in fact, 95% occurred within 5 years. The risk of repeat shoulder CR was lowest if the primary reduction had been performed by an orthopaedic surgeon (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76 95% CI: 0.64, 0.90 P = .002) or was associated with a humeral tuberosity fracture (HR, 0.71 CI, 0.53, 0.95 P = .02). Older age (HR, 0.97 CI, 0.97, 0.98 P < .0001) and higher medical comorbidity score (HR, 0.92 CI, 0.87, 0.98 P = .009) were also protective. Risk was highest among males (HR, 1.26 CI, 1.16, 1.36 P < .0001) and patients from low-income neighborhoods (HR, 1.23 CI, 1.13, 1.34 P < .0001).

Conclusion: Young male patients have the highest incidence of primary anterior shoulder dislocation requiring CR and the greatest risk of repeat shoulder CR. Patient, provider, and injury factors all influence repeat shoulder CR risk. A comprehensive understanding of the epidemiology of primary anterior shoulder dislocation will aid management decisions and injury prevention initiatives.

Keywords: epidemiology glenohumeral instability orthopaedics shoulder dislocation.

Fearless- AM 442 - History

F-85 Cutlass 442

Oldsmobile 1961-62 F-85
AM PB radio 12V
Delco 989387

Oldsmobile 1964 F-85
AM PB radio 12V
Delco 982252

Oldsmobile 1965 F-85
AM PB radio 12V
Delco 7291063

Oldsmobile 1966 F-85, Cutlass, 442
AM PB radio 12V
Delco 7289373

Oldsmobile 1967 F-85, Cutlass, 442
AM PB radio 12V
Delco 7299563

Oldsmobile 1967 F-85, Cutlass, 442
AM-FM PB radio 12V
Delco 7300113

Oldsmobile 1968 F-85, Cutlass, 442
Transistor AM PB radio 12V
Delco 7302013

Delco 7302023

Oldsmobile 1969 F-85, Cutlass, 442
Transistor AM PB radio 12V
Delco 93APB1

Oldsmobile 1969 F-85, Cutlass, 442
AM-FM stereo PB radio 12V
Delco 93AFMA1 (!) (!)

Oldsmobile 1970 F-85, Cutlass, 442
AM PB radio 12V
Delco 03APB1 7312373

Oldsmobile 1970-71 F-85, Cutlass, 442
AM-FM stereo PB radio 12V

Oldsmobile 1972(?) F-85, Cutlass, 442
Deluxe AM-FM PB radio 12V (aftermarket)
Automatic FXO-2427

1965 Oldsmobile F-85

F or 1965, the Oldsmobile F-85 was given a few updates to its styling. The big news came mid-season, with the introduction of the 4-4-2 package (which represented 4-speed, 4 barrel carburetor and dual exhausts). The 442 engine was a special Rocket V8 with its own block, pistons, exhaust manifolds, and heavy-duty cooling. The package also included a heavy-duty suspension, wider tires and wheels, heavy-duty engine mounts, heavy-duty steering gear, heavy-duty frame, and a special rear axle and driveshaft. The F-85 came equipped with either V-6 or V-8 engines and had several body styles to select from, including a 2-door club coupe, station wagon, and sedan. The F-85 was available as Standard, Deluxe, and Cutlass. The Cutlass models were available as a Sports Coupe, Holiday Hardtop, or Convertible.

The F-85 came equipped with a heater/defroster, self-adjusting brakes, dual sun visors, oil filter, electric windshield wipers, seat belts in the front, and an aluminized muffler. The Deluxe and Cutlass models were given a Deluxe steering wheel, padded dash, and carpeting.

The V-6, overhead valve engine displaced 225 cubic-inches and offered 155 horsepower. The standard V8, overhead valve engine was rated at 250 horsepower. Transmission choices ranged from either a Jetaway automatic, to a three-speed manual or a close-ratio, fully-synchronized, four-speed manual.
The Oldsmobile 4-4-2 was the company's counterpart to the Pontiac GTO in the evolving muscle car market. During these early years, it was not a separate model yet, but an option package on the Cutlass two-door models. The 4-4-2 (along with the items already mentioned) had an 11-inch clutch, a 70-amp battery, and special badges.

What Does 442 Stand for in Oldsmobile 442 Car?

The Oldsmobile 442 was one of the great American muscle cars in the 1960s. At the time, many auto companies were coming out with performance cars that were known by their numbers. The Oldsmobile 442 was originally introduced as an option package for the F-85 Cutlass line, but eventually it became its own model. The meaning of the numbers changed over time.


When the Oldsmobile 442 was introduced in 1964, it stood for a four-barrel carburetor, four-speed manual transmission, and dual exhaust. Surprisingly, it only had a 330 cubic-inch engine.


In 1965, General Motors increased the engine size to 400 cubic inches. It was only available with a four-speed transmission. The meaning of the numbers remained the same.


In 1966, GM introduced a three two-barrel carb set up, but they did not change the name to 642. Now the first "4" represented the 400 cubic-inch engine.


In 1968, the Oldsmobile 442 became its own model instead of just an option on the Cutlass. In 1972, the 442 reverted back to an option that was available on four different Cutlass models.


The 442 emblem from 1964 to 1967 was three colored boxes, from left to right red, orange and yellow. The numbers were written in black inside each box. In 1968, the Oldsmobile 442 emblem was changed to three silver numbers.

Fun Fact

The correct pronunciation is four-four-two. It should never be referred to as a "four-forty-two."

USS Fearless MSO-442 Art Print

Regular price $ 89.99 Sale price $ 59.99

USS Fearless MSO-442 Box Framed Canvas Art

Regular price $ 169.99 Sale price $ 119.99

USS Fearless MSO-442 Coffee Cup Mug

Regular price $ 29.99 From $ 24.99

This fearless Mexican American reporter fought racism and sexism to keep power in check

Jovita Idar (center) with colleagues in El Progreso’s print shop, 1914. (Georgia State University Library Archives for Research on Women and Gender)

In 1914, Texas Rangers — armed, uniformed, angry — rode up to the offices of El Progreso, a Spanish-language newspaper in Laredo, and beat on the door.

The state officers were notorious for harassing and even murdering ethnic Mexicans in Texas, and now El Progreso was in their crosshairs for publishing an article critical of President Wilson’s 1914 occupation of Veracruz, Mexico.

Jovita Idar, a diminutive reporter and one of the few women who worked at the paper, knew that the Rangers responded to any minor act of defiance with outsize brutality. But instead of doing as they told her, she barred the door and told them to leave. They protested, demanding that she open the door, but she stood her ground. Finally, they left.

Idar had insisted on the press’s right to hold the powerful accountable, which was all the more impressive considering her relative powerlessness. She was a woman and a person of Mexican heritage in a place that had little respect for either.

I dar was born into a progressive Mexican American family in Laredo, Texas, in 1885. Her father, Nicasio Idar, served as justice of the peace and assistant city marshal in the small border city and became intimately involved in Laredo’s social and economic life.

Though Texas had once been part of Mexico, Anglo-Americans spent much of the late 19th century trying to seize Tejano-owned property and subjugate Texas’s Spanish-speaking population. As the Mexican Revolution loomed, anti-Mexican sentiment blossomed throughout the region, a reaction to a wave of immigration and fears that revolutionaries might try to reclaim even more Texan land for Mexicans.

The tension that resulted turned the Texas–Mexico border into a tinderbox — one marked by segregation, open racism, and anti-Mexican stereotypes that still haunt the country today. To expose the lived reality of Mexican Americans, Nicasio founded a newspaper, La Crónica, in the 1890s.

At first, Jovita worked as a teacher, but she became frustrated with the horrific conditions in Tejano schools. In 1910, she joined the staff of her father’s newspaper, convinced that her verve for justice would be better used there. In a time when there were few women in journalism, Jovita became a reporter and columnist.

Sometimes she reported under her own name at other times, she signed her articles as “Astrea” (the Greek goddess of purity and justice) or “A.V. Negra” (which could be read phonetically as “Ave Negra,” or Blackbird). Together, the father and daughter reported on everything from the conditions of local workplaces and schools to the racism and oppression in the borderlands.

“Her writing has a sense of gravitas,” Gabriela González, a history professor at the University of Texas at San Antonio, told Timeline. “There is much knowledge, awareness, and a powerful consciousness informing and educating the reader, but her messages are delivered with a dignified humility.” González sees Idar as a woman ahead of her time and points out that her stances on social injustice, bilingual education, feminism, and politics were all in line with those of modern progressives and feminists. “She used her talents and privileges as an educated middle-class woman to courageously expose and speak out against injustice,” she says.

In her columns, Idar wrote directly to the women of Laredo. “Woman must always seek to acquire useful and beneficial knowledge,” she wrote, “for in modern times, she has broad horizons.”

In 1911, the newspaper put on a conference called the Congreso Mexicanista and invited all of the state’s Mexican journalists, local ethnic Mexican fraternal orders, mutual benefit societies, and representatives of other Tejanos, which Idar used as an opportunity for feminist organizing. She and a group of like-minded women formed the Liga Femenil Mexicanista (League of Mexican Women), a feminist organization that took a modern stance on social issues.

“Educate a woman and you educate a family,” the league’s slogan proclaimed. In keeping with this commitment to education, the group also organized free schools for Tejano children. They tackled injustices in education and the criminal justice system and fought poverty and sexism within the community. In 1911, they organized a statewide campaign to demand that Leon Cardenas Martinez Jr., a 16-year-old forced to confess to the rape and murder of a white woman, be set free. Despite their efforts and Texas laws that prevented the execution of a minor, he was put to death.

Idar also helped create the White Cross, a kind of Mexican Red Cross that provided nursing across the border during the the Mexican Revolution. She traveled to Mexico City with the organization as a nurse, caring for injured combatants and supporting her fellow nurses during the bloody battles for the democratization of Mexico.

As was the case with many resistance efforts in the borderlands, successes were often easily and unceremoniously undone. In the case of the Texas Rangers’ attempt to take over El Progreso, Idar managed only to save the paper for a single day. The next day, the Rangers stormed the building again, destroying the printing presses.

“We can endeavor, even to the point of sacrifice, if necessary, to enlighten our children,” wrote Idar in La Crónica in 1911. Her life stands as a testament to that mission — even if it is barely remembered today.

At Timeline, we reveal the forces that shaped America’s past and present. Our team and the Timeline community are scouring archives for the most visually arresting and socially important stories, and using them to explain how we got to now. To help us tell more stories, please consider becoming a Timeline member.

1. Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States and led the country through its greatest internal struggle, the Civil War. He successfully preserved the union if not for Abraham Lincoln, the United States would probably be divided into two countries right now. He also signed the Emancipation Proclamation, abolishing slavery in America. Abraham Lincoln is widely considered one of the greatest US presidents, if not one of the greatest leaders in history.



I disagree with this list. Few points:
– Hitler should not be here. Great leaders listen to others and make rational decision. Hitler lacked that ability. All 3rd Reich success was due to talented German marshals.
– Genghis khaan cannot be the most brutal. Other rulers at his time were as brutal as Genghis, if not bloodthristier than him. Genghis killed for reason, not to entertain himself. He is supposed to be ranked a lot higher on the list if you consider he built his empire from zero, he didn’t have opportunity to learn from someone like Aristotle, he didn’t have luxury to train himself while being guarded in a palace, etc. Pure natural phenomenon. You cannot deny it, whatever your stereotypical brain might say.
Just for your information, there is a big difference between “Khan” and “Khaan” in Mongolian. While “khaan” equivalent to “king”, “khan” has been introduced late-medeaval time becoming a title for provincial or tribal leaders.

I can’t believe that CYRUS THE GREAT is not in the list.
He was indeed a great King of all times. He established the great Persian empire which was the FIRST EMPIRE of the world. And though he was a great king, he was extremely unselfish. He destroyed the slavery in all his lands, and made the Cyrus Cylinder, the first example of human rights in the world, while slavery existed in western countries even in 19th century.
I am sure he was on of the great kings in the world, and I think that justice is more important Than the land or military .

Hey, I think you’ve gotten Gaius Julius Caesar (Commonly known as Julius Caesar) and Gaius Julius Caesar Octavian Augustus (Commonly known as Augustus | Octavian) deaths confused. Julius Caesar was assassinated on the Ides of March (44BC) which then paved the way for Augustus to follow in his adoptive fathers shoes. Augustus died of an illness in 14AD at the age of 75, which is quite a long time given the period of time, he was not assassinated.

Also a comment on the Charlemagne section, unsure why you didn’t state that he founded the HRE (Holy Roman Empire) in the year 800, plus that he became known as “The Father of Europe” seems an impressive title.

with no doubt the most powerful and fair king in the history is the Darius the first who ruled the largest empire in history and conquered a lot of it without any bloodshed . However The Alexander the great and Jenghiz khan made a bloodbath of people at the time… I CAN SAY IN THE TIME OF ALL OF RULERS IN UR LIST Was slevery of black people…but u cant find such a thing about all time of persia…AND LAST: United States and other countries who has been tried to ruin Iran and its history for the latest issues fed you basically false cinematic movies like �” and “Alexander” and a lot other movies….I hope there be one day everybody can live in honesty and peace….ALWAYS LEGENDS RISE FROM ENEMY’S LIES.

Why there is no Cyrus the great of Persia . He was the first king that made human rights and also he was one of the strongest warrior of all time

Where is raja raja cholan? He is the one of the greatest and still he has marks (temple) in thailand, vietnam, sri lanka, java sumatra etc…..

Just disgusting top 10 i have ever seen before. how Abraham Lincoln can become top 1 rulers. shame to the writers

This list is ludicrously biased list as the person who made list primarily highlighted the western people.

Ghenghis Khan deserved to be number one because his kingdom was considerably large which include China, South east Asia, central Asia, west Asia, Some parts of Russia and Western Europe. In a nutshell, he had a gigantic Eurasian kingdom and no king had ever conquered this much. Therefore, Ghenghis khan deservedly to be ranked one.

Rest of list should go like this:

2. Alexander the great
3. Attila
4. Napolean
5. Timurlane
6. Asoka the great
7. Cyrus the great
8. Ceaser
9. Kublai Khan
10. Charle

akbar , askoka and maharana pratap should also be added

vaibhav i agree wid u but it was chandragupta maurya dynasty..

chandragupta maurya is the greatest king of all time..

oh please all of knew just Cyrus the Great

Cyrus the Great was the greatest ruler of all time.

You’re mixing up Julius Caesar with his adoptive son Octavius. The latter is known as Augustus Caesar and is considered the first emperor of Rome, thus you post a picture of Julius Caesar with your description. You should change the picture to one of Octavius Augustus and rename the title “Augustus” instead of just “Caesar” to avoid confusion.

Number one should be the Duke of Wellington. A brilliant strategist not hampered by traditional theories. Bernard Montgomery who led the US forces to victory in Europe after they became bogged down by stiff German resistance and poor leadership. Henry V pulled the rabbit out of a hat at Agincourt through strategy, planning and innovation. Heinz Guderian who revolutionised modern warfare and was instrumental in Nazi Germany’s European vacation of 1940.

By the way, by late 1940 Britain was manufacturing more tanks, aircraft and ships than Germany. Britain was never the lame duck that the Americans like to think they were.

Where is Stalin? Stalin was more powerful than all the above listed leaders together. He freed Europe from fashists and made Russia to a superpower and ruled until his death remaining the absolute dictator of many countries including East Germany, Hungary, Finland, Poland, Chechoslovacka , Baltic states and many other Eastern countries. He kept China and North Korea under his strong influence. In 1945 he was more powerful than Roosevelt, Churchill and hitler together. Being a born leader he did not lead his country to destruction like that mentally ill hitler but turn it to superpower with atomic bomb and growing economy.

I partially agree with what sandy indian says but there are much greater rulers from India. Someone find about Kartavirya Arjuna who ruled the entire earth for 85000 years.

why ashoka is not in this list or morya or guptas they also had large area and rulead well in there time

O hello are you stupid or what . have you heard the name “Ashoka The Great”.. he had ability to rule over the world, but he didn’t. because he believe in peace .. please i request you to go to library and take history lesson .. if you can’t do that then vote for it. i’m damm sure ashoka will be on the top

The list itself isn’t terrible but the ethnocentrism coming out in the comments is frankly shameful. None of the American presidents did anything great enough to make the list. Think about this list in perspective: the US has less than 300 years of history while the entirety of recorded human history is several millennia. What makes the US so great is its technology, not the singular accomplishments of its leaders who didn’t even wield absolute power.

Joseph II was hardly a fitting choice, and while I applaud the inclusion of a character like Hitler he arguably could have been left off as well. Augustus should be way higher the Roman Emperors took their imperial title from his name 14 centuries after his death.

Caesar should have been first, and frankly none of the American presidents belong on that list, give Lincoln’s spot to Marisa Theresa, and put her in 8th where Caesar is

Abraham Lincoln the greatest ruler ever? this was obviously done by an American?! Get your head out of your own pathetic Arses! all of the above where better and more worthy than Abraham Lincoln, Edward VII was better than Licoln for god sake.

– Genghis Khan gets a very undeserved reputation for brutality, and in fact his empire was remarkably inclusive and fair. His war tactics were brutal, but at the time so were everyone else’s – he was simply a great deal better at it.

– As has been mentioned, you are confusing Augustus and Juluis Caesar here. Augustus is called Caesar after Julius as he took over after the latter’s assassination and became the first emperor of Rome.

– The Emancipation didn’t free a single slave it was a promise to free slaves in rebelling territories not yet under Lincoln’s control. It was a symbolic end to slavery, but American slavery did not end until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in early 1865.

We can definitely argue about who else should be on this list, but these are three pretty egregious historical errors right off the bat.

There are plenty of problems with this list, but chief among them is the inclusion of Adolf Hitler. If you define ‘leadership’ as creating a momentary industrial powerhouse through unsustainable scapegoating, forced labor, and military production, and then further define it as megalomania that results in some of the worst military and strategic decisions the world has ever seen, then sure, he’s a great leader. But then of course you also have to ask yourself how a great leader could begin and prosecute a war so badly planned that it resulted in the complete destruction of his entire country.

So basically, even if you don’t automatically excise him from this list because of the Holocaust, you should do so because he was actually remarkably BAD for Germany.

Hitler is in it but not the Great Cyrus seriously!

The list cannot even begin without the greatest king ever produced in the history of world – The great Maratha king Chhatrapati Shivajee. He had the best of all the qualities – Great warrior himself, great politician, great administrator, and above all, excellent human being who worked hard thoughout his life for wellbeing of the people of his kingdom, selflessly. No historian could ever find a single blot on his character. He is one of those great warriors who never lost a single battle in his life.
Please go through the history to know details about him and the battles he fought. It’s all amazing and you will never come out of it ever.

Chinggis khan should be No 1. It is actually not pronounced like Genghis by Mongolians.

try to study history of great muslim ruler UMER IBN E KHITAAB.i think he is the most popular ruler of the world .

The graetest ruler is yet to come.
he’s on the way coming to make this world again like a heaven and end this evil permanently.,
he’ll be the one [ KING DACK ] (L.P.T.D)

Hey not sure if this has been pointed out already, but Julius Caesar and Augustus were not the same people. Also Augustus wasn’t assassinated Julius Caesar was. I think the confusion lies in the name Octavian Caesar was Julius’ Caesar’s adopted son who went on to rule as stated above from 27BC -14CE, however he is usually know as Caesar Augustus.

I think you need to redefine “ruler” because presidents do not rule a nation, they govern it. You can’t rule in a democracy. Abraham Lincoln was a great leader but he was no ruler. He doesn’t even compare to some of the greatest rulers. What about Stalin? Ramses II? Or even Cyrus The Great? He built one of the greatest empires oh his time and was one of the most compassionate rulers.

I agree, It should not be Top 10 Rulers but Top 10 Leaders. Top 10 Rulers applies to ancient up to late middle ages era. Ancient barbarian and late middle ages rulers who conquered and ruled with the sword is not comparable to leaders who governs.

You started this page with introductory passage
“There have truly been many great rulers in history. Some managed to conquer the world, some managed to end violence and put their countries into periods of peace and stability, and some changed not only their nations, but the world”.

by looking at all these things, i think Muhammad, may peace be upon him, is the world greatest ruler and leader, who still is and always will be.

I just wanted to say that the information you have above about Caesar is wrong. Julius Caesar conquered Gaul and sent his legions to probe Britan for possible conquest as well (see: The Gallic War). Because of Caesar’s conquests and his way with self promotion the senate became weary of Caesar and demanded he lay down command of his legions and return to Rome. Caesar refused stating famously “I’d rather be the first man in Gaul than the second man in Rome.” He marched on Rome with his legions (This had been done once before by Sulla Felix). Caesar had himself declared Dictator for life.
In truth Imperator was a complicated title during the republic. It could be any magistrate with imperium or an honorific title bestowed on a commander. Ceasar possesed both forms of imperium but he was officially a dictator like Fabius Maximus of Sulla Felix. Ceasar was assassinated on the ides of March in 44BC. Octavian, Caesar’s successor died in 14AD. He was the first Emperor(Augustus) and started the style of government known as the principate. During this period the Emperors gave the illusion that the republic was still alive and they were nearly the first among peers.

1-Cyrus the great
2- Alexander the Great
3- Darius the great
4- Charlemagne
5- Napoleon
6- Caesar
7- Genghis Khan
8- Asoka
9- Suleiman
10- Huang Ti

Just check out CIVILIZATION 5 the pc game and you will get a list of the greatest leaders ever.also i feel its unfair to rank them and enlisting the top 100 in no perticular order would be a much better option

Abraham Lincoln is greatest leader of all time?
Totally disagree.
Author speaks as if Civil War and Emancipation Proclamation are two separate great achievements of Lincoln. But, wasn’t Civil War heavily caused by slavery? I believe they should be counted as one, a good one though.

Catherine the Great? and Peter the Great?

How can you be so ignorant to the truth of the bible or even history so as not to include Solomon as the greatest king/kingdom ever until the reign of Jesus Christ in the millennium. I know the bible is not popular among the so called intellectuals and scholarly egg heads, but you can’t hold water in a bucket with this list. Read 2 Chronicles 8 and 9 and pay close attention to 9:22.

Archaeological evidence shows that Solomon’s kingdom was not the greatest kingdom or even that much of a kingdom. He ruled an insignificant city state which would be conquered several times over by real empires such as the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Macedonian, Roman, Byzantine, Muslim, and Ottoman empires. The bible is not popular among scholarly intellectuals because it is based on little to no evidence. And the events and people in the bible who are true such as Solomon are exaggerated greatly. Please read “David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition.” Try to use outside sources to prove the bible rather than just accept it automatically as true.

In the period of Genghis Khan and their emperors they make us set, organized livable and lovable to all the human beings due to this we all are organized/set in rest of the world thanks to all of them for giving this good history to the world and us.

Ok, I’m pretty sure that Odysseus was not REAL.

lol sultan suleyman at least in the number then

what about Saladin he was the best read about him and you’ll know

I’m unsure whether this was previously mentioned or not, but why is Frederick the Great not on this list? I agree with those saying the opinion of this list is skewed. (Although, come to think of it, almost every “Top Whatever” list sparks a similar reaction to this one!!)

he was a leader but not a ruler and a fighter… insted of Lincoln there should be Atila the Hun

Hitler was a great ruler. Let`s exclude the fact he killed millions, started a war, etc. “He got things done.” As Bernie Ecclestone said. Germany was like Zimbabwe, mass-unemployment, hyperflation, where a loaf cost BILLIONS, and Germany had lost parts of Germany. He turned the country into the most technological, and military in the world. and Nazi Germany made many advances in science which are still in use today, they were the first to ban hunting, the first environmentalists Hitler admired the British Empire, you can go on and on. People say, The Holocaust is the most evil event ever,” but Jews have been persecuted FOREVER. By the Catholic Church, England, Spain, Russia. And so on. And his Eugenics programme was copied from America. But you never hear this. Or hear about how Commie Jews in the USSR killed FAR more than he did. Hitler`s only problem was that he were mad..

And What About Indian kings Like Chhatrapati Shivaji , Samudragupta ,Prithviraj Chauhan & more in this list Only Western Kings R not eligible for this list

You know this is all opinions right, man? Cause none of y’all could really get the best leaders

To Sasa, your answer of September 9 have no provision for Reply at the end of your answer so I just use this comment box. Can’t you not see that he is a great thinker, writer, etc. He has the gift and he used it to the maximum to advance his advocacy while as far as I know Roosevelt does not have the gift because if he has the gift, I am sure he would make use of that gift also. So, there is no comparison. However, read Theodore Roosevelt comment in praise of Lincoln.

An Introductory Note by Theodore Roosevelt

Abraham Lincoln – 16th President of U.S.
Immediately after Lincoln’s re-election to the Presidency, in an off-hand speech, delivered in response to a serenade by some of his admirers on the evening of November 10, 1864, he spoke as follows:

“It has long been a grave question whether any government not too strong for the liberties of its people can be strong enough to maintain its existence in great emergencies. On this point, the present rebellion brought our republic to a severe test, and the Presidential election, occurring in regular course during the rebellion, added not a little to the strain…. The strife of the election is but human nature practically applied to the facts in the case. What has occurred in this case must ever occur in similar cases. Human nature will not change. In any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak and as strong, as silly and as wise, as bad and as good. Let us therefore study the incidents in this as philosophy to learn wisdom from and none of them as wrongs to be avenged…. Now that the election is over, may not all having a common interest reunite in a common fort to save our common country? For my own part, I have striven and shall strive to avoid placing any obstacle in the way. So long as I have been here, I have not willingly planted a thorn in any man’s bosom. While I am deeply sensible to the high compliment of a re-election and duly grateful, as I trust, to Almighty God for having directed my countrymen to a right conclusion, as I think for their own good, it adds nothing to my satisfaction that any other man may be disappointed or pained by the result.”

This speech has not attracted much general attention, yet it is in a peculiar degree both illustrative and typical of the great statesman who made it, alike in its strong common-sense and in its lofty standard of morality. Lincoln’s life, Lincoln’s deeds and words, are not only of consuming interest to the historian, but should be intimately known to every man engaged in the hard practical work of American political life. It is difficult to overstate how much it means to a nation to have as the two foremost figures in its history men like Washington and Lincoln. It is good for every man in any way concerned in public life to feel that the highest ambition any American can possibly have will be gratified just in proportion as he raises himself toward the standards set by these two men.

It is a very poor thing, whether for nations or individuals, to advance the history of great deeds done in the past as an excuse for doing poorly in the present but it is an excellent thing to study the history of the great deeds of the past, and of the great men who did them, with an earnest desire to profit thereby so as to render better service in the present. In their essentials, the men of the present day are much like the men of the past, and the live issues of the present can be faced to better advantage by men who have in good faith studied how the leaders of the nation faced the dead issues of the past. Such a study of Lincoln’s life will enable us to avoid the twin gulfs of immorality and inefficiency–the gulfs which always lie one on each side of the careers alike of man and of nation. It helps nothing to have avoided one if shipwreck is encountered in the other. The fanatic, the well-meaning moralist of unbalanced mind, the parlor critic who condemns others but has no power himself to do good and but little power to do ill–all these were as alien to Lincoln as the vicious and unpatriotic themselves. His life teaches our people that they must act with wisdom, because otherwise adherence to right will be mere sound and fury without substance and that they must also act high-mindedly, or else what seems to be wisdom will in the end turn out to be the most destructive kind of folly.

Throughout his entire life, and especially after he rose to leadership in his party, Lincoln was stirred to his depths by the sense of fealty to a lofty ideal but throughout his entire life, he also accepted human nature as it is, and worked with keen, practical good sense to achieve results with the instruments at hand. It is impossible to conceive of a man farther removed from baseness, farther removed from corruption, from mere self-seeking but it is also impossible to conceive of a man of more sane and healthy mind–a man less under the influence of that fantastic and diseased morality (so fantastic and diseased as to be in reality profoundly immoral) which makes a man in this work-a-day world refuse to do what is possible because he cannot accomplish the impossible.

In the fifth volume of Lecky’s History of England, the historian draws an interesting distinction between the qualities needed for a successful political career in modern society and those which lead to eminence in the spheres of pure intellect or pure moral effort. He says:

“….the moral qualities that are required in the higher spheres of statesmanship [are not] those of a hero or a saint. Passionate earnestness and self-devotion, complete concentration of every faculty on an unselfish aim, uncalculating daring, a delicacy of conscience and a loftiness of aim far exceeding those of the average of men, are here likely to prove rather a hindrance than an assistance. The politician deals very largely with the superficial and the commonplace his art is in a great measure that of skilful compromise, and in the conditions of modern life, the statesman is likely to succeed best who possesses secondary qualities to an unusual degree, who is in the closest intellectual and moral sympathy with the average of the intelligent men of his time, and who pursues common ideals with more than common ability…. Tact, business talent, knowledge of men, resolution, promptitude and sagacity in dealing with immediate emergencies, a character which lends itself easily to conciliation, diminishes friction and inspires confidence, are especially needed, and they are more likely to be found among shrewd and enlightened men of the world than among men of great original genius or of an heroic type of character.”

The American people should feel profoundly grateful that the greatest American statesman since Washington, the statesman who in this absolutely democratic republic succeeded best, was the very man who actually combined the two sets of qualities which the historian thus puts in antithesis. Abraham Lincoln, the rail-splitter, the Western country lawyer, was one of the shrewdest and most enlightened men of the world, and he had all the practical qualities which enable such a man to guide his countrymen and yet he was also a genius of the heroic type, a leader who rose level to the greatest crisis through which this nation or any other nation had to pass in the nineteenth century.

I’m sorry i have no time to read that whole letter…I am not denying the fact that lincoln is a great leader. Fantastic, even, and I did not at any point say that Theodore Roosevelt would say he was not a great leader.

I deny the fact that Lincoln was the greatest. If you want to debate who the greatest AMERICAN leader was, sure, Lincoln is certainly there, along with several others.

Also I’m not really sure what “The Gift” is…do you mean his oratory skills? Because I can assure you there are many people who have equivalent, if not better, talent at words than Lincoln.

Yes, there are equivalent if not better but they did not have the opportunity to use it as Lincoln did and so they cannot claim or attributed with greatness. You did not say that Teddy Roosevelt would say that he was not a great leader, on the contrary, he said Lincoln was a great leader, just read the last portion above. I am convince that he was the greatest and he deserved number 1 because I have studied his life. If you want proofs, just search in Google Lincoln’s debates, speeches, quotes , and letters, inaugural address. I have no time to research for you..

You believe that Lincoln is the best based on his speeches and debates? I still am not sure what you’re trying to get at with this whole Teddy Roosevelt point..I am not trying to compare Roosevelt and Lincoln, that is not my point. I was simply restating a quote from Roosevelt that I believe rings true, “Speak softly but carry a big stick”.

Again, that quote pertains to what you have just said–Lincoln’s speeches, debates, essays, quotes, inaugural addresses, and letters–mean absolutely nothing if he did not back them up with action. I don’t believe in a man who can TELL me what they can do, I believe in a man who can SHOW me, and DO the things he says he will do.

During Lincoln’s presidency, around 750,000 American soldiers died. That is the bloodiest presidency of the United States. I am not really sure how that is a success in his line of work…

Yes, and most admired is his Gettysburg address which he wrote on the train going to Gettysburg and his draft is still preserved. Neither do I compare Teddy with Lincoln because there is no comparison. People compare Lincoln with Franklin Roosevelt, both are Aquarian, both are faced with the problem of saving the country. Better read the biography or accomplishments of Lincoln how he backed up or carry out what he said in his inaugural addresses so that you can better appreciate the man and his efforts to solve the problems that arose during his terms. A single quotation from Teddy which is his motto during the various wars he led against the enemies of the US does not make much of greatness. The price of peace is 750,000 Americans dead on both sides is seen as a success.

When you rebel, the next logical step is secession or separation by declaring independence just as the Americans did to the British. The intent is the same, we don’t presume just to lower taxes or whatever.

that is not true. Most rebellions seek to take over the entire country. Usually, they do not end up seceding. The French Revolution was a rebellion, but there was no secession. The Robespierres took over France from Louis XVI in 1789. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was a rebellion, but there was no secession. The Bolsehviks led by Lenin took over Russia and killed the Tsar, forming the Soviet Union in 1917.

The American Revolution WAS a war intended to lower taxes. When the war began, the Colonies had absolutely no intention of becoming an independent country. They were tired of being taxed by the British government, who ruled from overseas. Have you ever heard the phrase “no taxation without representation”? The American Colonies wanted to be represented in Parliament in England so they could fairly be taxed (even though their taxes were quite low).

I can cite many more rebellions that had absolutely nothing to do with secession. Even in recent events, the Arab Spring is a string of revolutions around the Middle East and Africa in which governments are overthrown and replaced. THAT is how most rebellions end: the government is overthrown, or the rebellion is crushed.

In the French revolution and in Russia there is no need to secede, just overthrow, take over or replace. Just as Cromwell take over England, no secession, just overthrow the King. There is no argument over that.

Secession is more formal, preceded by declarations of secession before going to war which the south did because they are member of the Union. And they form their own, the Confederacy of Southern States. In a broader sense,it is just a matter of semantics but the intent is the same, rebellion, that is, rebellion against the Federal Union. As president, Lincoln chief duty is to preserve the Union, upheld the Constitution’s declaration of equality of man, regardless of race, creed, etc. etc. and therefore slavery is against and a violation of the Constitution.

Lincoln dedicated the remaining years of his political life to make his advocacy which he started as early as 1854, comes true, that is the mark of a great man considering that he came from a poor family, but strive to educate himself and rise to great height, a self-made man.

Yes, so we have established the fact that there is a difference between a secession and a rebellion/revolution.

However, slavery was not unconstitutional at the beginning of the Civil War. Lincoln strove to place laws that would make it unequal. The “equality of man” as you put it only considered white men “men”. Therefore, the constitution only called for the protection of the rights of white men. African American men were considered property until after the Civil War.

I do not deny that Abraham Lincoln was a great leader. Is he one of the Top 10 leaders of all time? Yes, he very well could be. But #1? That is something to debate about.

What makes Lincoln great is that he has foresight. He saw sooner or later that slavery will be extinct in the US. That there cannot be a union, of states where half is for slavery and half is against slavery. Being not unconstitutional at the beginning of the Civil War does not make slavery right or justifiable. It is an accepted fact that the US Constitution is not perfect so that many amendments had been introduced in order to fill up what had been lacking or overlooked. And one thing about Lincoln, he made his speeches, great ones at that, and various letters, and made great debates with Stephen Douglas, his political rival, etc. etc.

I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make at the end there…how do his speeches, debates, and letters make him a better leader….? He could have been a fantastic orator but, as Theodore Roosevelt said, “Speak softly and carry a big stick”. Who cares what you can say, you have to back it up.

I’m also not really sure where you are getting your “facts”…cite a source?

HAHAHAHAHAH! Odysseus was not even proven he existed…

Mr Muhammad Ali Jinnah is the first Great leader in the world and he is also a founder of Pakistan.The legend of Pakistan no words to describe the beauty of Quaide e azam we are owe to our Quaid Muhammad Ali Jinnah.We salute him confidence and honesty love you Quaide we never forget you.

How is he the first great leader in the world if people like Alexander came before him…by over 1,000 years…

this rating is ridiculous, hitler was more powerfull than nepolean and gengais khan was more powerfull than elizabeth, c class rating

Be careful…Hitler was an incredible public speaker. There is no other leader that inspired his country to go from being a country in 33 billion dollars in debt to the greatest military power on Earth in a little over twenty years….yes he was a total jerk, but he was a magnificent orator. I’m not totally sure where you are getting your facts, but the SS and SA were not exactly going around killing leaders and threatening people under Hitler’s command. Let’s remember that Times Magazine named him Man of the Year in 1938, so he must have done something right.

The list lacks historical integrity because it doesn’t mention two of the most prosperous eras in history. The first is the kingdom of Israel and it’s ruler king Solomon. In addition to the early Islamic period and I am not going to mention prophet muhammed because he was a spiritual leader that laid the seeds of the Islamic civilisation but did not cultivate it himself but I must say that you need to include Umar bin Al-Khattab a great political leader and successor of the prophet and you can read further about his accomplishments. P.S. Abraham Lincoln should not be in the list of top rulers in history but he would absolutely be on the top of the most successful presidents of the unites states.


Oh and yes Saladin should be on this list as an absolute I am not a Muslim but i know that he was a great leader of men , a nation and a people.

This list while not totally correct is a good list I think that Abe was a President that did what he had to do in the time that he lived but and i repeat BUT his was a political decision. There is one important person that is missing off of this list that was a great leader Hannibal Barca all these generals and leaders learned from him Napoleons tactics were not his own they were based off of previous leaders and warmongers. Yes George Washington should be on this list because of his great ability to lead he was not a great field general but he was a great leader of men and because of him the United States because a Nation his leadership at the time the first President was very serious and that is why he was asked to lead the country for 3 terms only other Person to do that was FDR. yes there are a lot of people missing from this list from different countries who many consider to be great rulers many have done great and powerful things in the times that they lead but we each have our own list just like in everything else good list and i even agree with Hitler but thank god he made his mistake of invading Russia in the winter. and to whoever said that Europe would be speaking Russian your wrong you would all be speaking German. Plus please remember Alexander the great may have been a great warrior but his governing skill were really bad overall i think the list is a good one …..

abraham lincoln.. maybe in america.. but definitely not in the world..

It is not Augustus, it is Julius Caesar, the first Emperor of Rome.
Abraham Lincoln deserves to be number 1 because of his greatness. He preserved the Union and abolished slavery for the good of mankind.

No. He abolished slavery for a military purpose…honestly, if the Civil War had not started during his presidency, he almost definitely would not have abolished slavery.

I’m not saying he’s racist, but he certainly had a reason for abolishing slavery–he wanted to decrease morale in the south and encourage freed slaves to run to the North, which would destroy the South’s economy.

We cannot just make conclusions without knowing the historical background to appreciate greatness. Lincoln from the outset was strongly against slavery. As early as 1820, the Missouri Compromise outlawed slavery above the 36-30′ parallell comprised of the industrial north, while those below, made up of the agricultural south. Lincoln return to politics as a result of the Kansas-Nebraska Act forming the states of Kansas and Nebraska which allowed settlers to decide whether they would or would not accept slavery. Lincoln saw this as a violation and a repeal of the Missouri Compromise of 1820. With the advent of the Republican Party, Lincoln became its standard bearer and won as President in January 1861. The south saw this as a threat and so, secession started. War started on March 1861. Emancipation Proclamation (abolition of slavery) by Lincoln was done in September 22,1862. He did not abolished slavery because of the Civil War. The Civil War was started by the south because of the slavery issue.

I agree with just about everything you said, which was basically just reinforcing my points…until your last sentence. The south saw their secession as a formation of a new government. The north saw it as a rebellion. While the first battle of the war was initiated by the south (Sumter), it was because they feared the north would attack (which ended up happening at Bull Run, the next major battle, in which the north attacked the south). Lincoln wanted to “preserve the Union”, meaning that he saw the secession as a rebellion, not a separation.

I am sure that secession is a violation of the US Constitution. Secession, rebellion and separation are the same. It can also be seen as treason.

Lincoln even before he became president was a staunch anti-slavery advocate.

no, secession and rebellion are not the same. Rebellion could be to lower taxes, not necessarily secede from a country.

Yet lincoln saw it as a rebellion. And sought to end it.

Do you have sources to back up his anti-slavery policies? I’d love to see them.

How about Harry Truman. After the atomic bombs were dropped the US had the most supreme power the world has ever seen. Harry made the decision and the whole world trembled. This is a great topic with excellent feedback all around.

I think you should consider adding late “sheikh Zayed founder of UAE” (may his soul rest in peace) he was a very great man.

I think the creater of this list is from america therefor many people from that place. Therefor they are not add the name of Chatrapati Shivaji maharaj & their family.

1-)2.Mehmet the Conqueror
2-)Alexander the Great
3-)Sultan 1. Selim Yavuz
4-)Ceasar Augustus
5-)Gengish Khan
7-)Napolyon Bonapart
8-)Suleiman the Magnificent

prepare a list of a person who knows history

u can tell this is made by an american as abraham lincoln is at the top. he is far from the best ruler ever and is not even regarded as one of the best to the rest of the world

I do not thInk. Chinngiss khan was greatest Lincolin was nothing with Chinngiss khan

Joseph II was a very poor choice as one of the top ten Greatest Rulers. Though he pushed hard for freedom among the serfs he was a control freak in matters of religion. “Absolute power” did, in fact, corrupt him absolutely though I think he was corrupt before his mother died and left him in charge.



7. Fu Hao

She is considered as one of the most fearless female warriors in history. Fu Hao (1200 BC) was one of the numerous wives of the Shang emperor. She displayed remarkable intelligence and military aptitude and became the emperor’s most trusted confidant. She commanded and led the Shang army to battle the restive tribes and brought them under her domain. One of Fu Hao’s earliest victories was against an obstinate tribe which had troubled the Shang empire for generations. Fu Hao decisively defeated the tribe in a single battle. She later led numerous military campaigns to consolidate Shang power.

Yungang Grottoes (UNESCO/NHK)

Additional resources:

Read about the Longmen caves in Luoyang, China, also made in the Northern Wei dynasty

Soper, Alexander C. “Northern Liang and Northern Wei in Kansu.” Artibus Asiae , no. 2 (1958): 131–64.

Steinhardt, Nancy S. Chinese Architecture in an Age of Turmoil, 200600. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2014.

Tsiang, Katherine R. “Changing Patterns of Divinity and Reform in the Late Northern Wei.” The Art Bulletin 84, no. 2 (2002): 222–245.

Yi, Lidu. Yungang: Art, History, Archaeology, Liturgy. London and New York: Routledge, 2017.