/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16275093]

Who's the most high IQ ruler in history? Who's the most /lit/?

[Anonymous No.16275100]

>>16275093
>>>/his/

[Anonymous No.16275179]

Easy.

[Anonymous No.16275252]

>>16275179
>A passion for linguistics prompted him throughout his life to study new languages, and he was able to speak and write not only Portuguese but also Latin, French, German, English, Italian, Spanish, Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit, Chinese, Occitan and Tupi.
Damn.

[Anonymous No.16275276]

>>16275252
Yeah, he was brilliant and well-respected in Europe by a bunch of famous intellectuals.
>"I was born to devote myself to culture and sciences," the Emperor remarked in his private journal during 1862.[90][91] He had always been eager to learn and found in books a refuge from the demands of his position.[92][93] Subjects which interested Pedro II were wide-ranging, including anthropology, history, geography, geology, medicine, law, religious studies, philosophy, painting, sculpture, theater, music, chemistry, physics, astronomy, poetry and technology, among others.[94][95] By the end of his reign, there were three libraries in São Cristóvão palace containing more than 60,000 books.
>In 1875, he was elected to the French Academy of Sciences, an honor previously granted to only two other heads of state: Peter the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte.[113][114] He exchanged letters with scientists, philosophers, musicians and other intellectuals. Many of his correspondents became his friends, including Richard Wagner, Louis Pasteur, Louis Agassiz, John Greenleaf Whittier, Michel Eugène Chevreul, Alexander Graham Bell, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Arthur de Gobineau, Frédéric Mistral, Alessandro Manzoni, Alexandre Herculano, Camilo Castelo Branco and James Cooley Fletcher.[115] His erudition amazed Friedrich Nietzsche when the two met.[116] Victor Hugo told the Emperor: "Sire, you are a great citizen, you are the grandson of Marcus Aurelius," and Alexandre Herculano called him a "Prince whom the general opinion holds as the foremost of his era because of his gifted mind, and due to the constant application of that gift to the sciences and culture."

[Anonymous No.16275297]

>>16275093
Charlemagne

[Anonymous No.16275358]

>>16275093
blackbeard
not even close desu

[Anonymous No.16275371]

>>16275358
For me, it's Rev. Jim Jones

[Anonymous No.16275456]

>>16275093
Charles de Gaulle

[Anonymous No.16275476]

>>16275093
Napoleon then Jefferson in that list

[Anonymous No.16275526]

>>16275093
Marcus.

[Anonymous No.16275527]

>>16275093
Trump

[Anonymous No.16275580]

>>16275252
>>16275276
Probably correct, but unfortunately he didn't left any everlasting work, though he probably could have if he dedicated himself enough. Even a book of memories, coming from such a man, would have been a masterpiece.

That's why Julius Caesar, Marcus Aurelius and Lorenzo de' Medici strike me as superior choices. Winston Churchill too.
D. Pedro was more erudite than all of them put together, but he dedicated his time to learning and reigning, not to creation itself.
He started a very beautiful translation of the Arabian Nights, but didn't finish it. He also tried to translated Dante, I think, but again didn't finish.

[Anonymous No.16275599]

Hannibal was pretty god damn smart.

Like, smug anime villain tier.

[Anonymous No.16275651]

>>16275252
In the same vein, Mithridates of Pontus knew I think 30 languages, and was an all around cool guy

[Anonymous No.16275656]

>>16275093
Obviously Hitler

[Anonymous No.16275662]

>>16275599
Hannibal was never a rule. In fact, he got repeatedly fucked over by Carthage’s ruling class and his family was despised by many of their Senators.

[Anonymous No.16275671]

>>16275662
>what is a general
Don't be dumb.

[Anonymous No.16275681]

You know I'm right

[Anonymous No.16275725]

>>16275671
He never ruled over any territory, or any people besides his troops. He was not a ruler; he was a general and a soldier.

[Anonymous No.16275745]

>>16275725
Generals are the most important kind of rulers.

[Anonymous No.16275828]

>>16275358
based

[Anonymous No.16276123]

>>16275297
Anon.... he was nearly illiterate.....

>>16275456
tell that to French in Algeria

>>16275527
kek

>>16275656
Yeah because letting british troops flee at Dunkirk and constantly trying to suck up for a peace treaty when some of his enemies set their goal to annihilate Germany was a sign of great leadership. Unironically Hitler was too much of a wimp.

[Anonymous No.16276180]

>>16275093
/thread

[Anonymous No.16276185]

>>16275093
>nelson mandela
>gandhi
>lenin
>Franklin R
>fidel castro?
>mlk jr?
>vlad tepes
>Margaret Thatcher

this picture was made by a retard


who is on the bottom left?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.16276190]

>>16276185
Idi Amin

[Anonymous No.16276337]

>>16276190
ahahahaha

[Anonymous No.16276367]

>>16275093
Ughh, excuse me, where is Frederick?

[Anonymous No.16276371]

>>16275297
Dude was huge.

[Anonymous No.16276377]

>>16275580
>Winston Churchill too.
Okay that's over the line.

[Anonymous No.16276383]

>>16276123
>Anon.... he was nearly illiterate.....
And? What is reading culture before such a man anyway.

[Anonymous No.16276386]

>>16276123
>Unironically Hitler was too much of a wimp.
Normie "based" tier middle iq opinion. You're completely ignoring what makes him unique in history, and it shows you have an immature conception of intelligence, especially in rulers. You seem to expect the mark of a good ruler to be a tactical genius like Napoleon above all others.

[Anonymous No.16276391]

Unironically King Solomon. Without getting too conspiratorial, she is still held in high regard with powerful people today.

[Anonymous No.16276392]

>>16275100
/his/ is shit. I got banned from there for asking a question about sin. Why is sin off topic on the religion board?

[Anonymous No.16276395]

>>16276391
*he

[Anonymous No.16276405]

>>16276392
Yeah /his/ is more just a fun place to relax and talk shit about history, there's a reason we get so much flood in from purely philosophical threads. Not that I dislike them, but it wouldn't hurt if mods cut down a few when there were too many, as if the centre of the board still rests on doing something yourself like reading, and which is a task of the intellect, it is unlikely it will get flooded by shitposters. Similar to /out/ which depends on going outside.

[Anonymous No.16276417]

>>16275681
not so fast gweilo

[Anonymous No.16276437]

>>16276367
/thread.

[Anonymous No.16276531]

>>16276386
Not that anon, explain what you mean please. Hitler was intelligent in the sense that he was very erudite and had a grand passion, but military strategy is still required to be a good ruler.

[Anonymous No.16277725]

>>16276185
Why? It's just a picture of leaders throughout history.

[Anonymous No.16277743]

>High IQ
Augustus
>most /lit/
Julian the Apostate
He was a 4channer contrarian before such a thing existed

[Anonymous No.16277748]

>>16275093
Elagabalus

[Anonymous No.16277813]

>>16276180

It's hard to say, but this could be right. Just look at his achievements, and what he started from.

He kept track of a whole empire, personally, and he couldn't read or write until his forties, so it was all in his head.

[Anonymous No.16277881]

>>16276531
Of course it is still required, and Hitler was a great military tactician, but it wasn't his natural endeavour like a general that's for sure.

Hitler was such an enormous force throughout Europe, who had been merely a peasant before hand, and was truly a purely selfless mission of the self. I mean really it is the relation he had to the German people, to relate to them in such a actualising way.

[Anonymous No.16277918]

>>16275179

One sees it in his eyes

[Anonymous No.16277965]

Genghis Khan

[Anonymous No.16278136]

>>16277881
>Hitler was such an enormous force throughout Europe, who had been merely a peasant before hand, and was truly a purely selfless mission of the self.
This is completely true, but I still don't think he was specially "intelligent" when compared to the other great men of history, whether they be scientists or philosophers or rulers or generals. Much of his rule was based off a sort of innate virtue - he had a great love for his people and he was a visionary, but he was not a 'good' ruler, or rather, he didn't have the logistic, strategic, or economic expertise to be considered a good ruler. I would also reject the idea that he was a great military tactician, unless you have any particular battles you'd like to cite as being so great, and directly under the control of Hitler. The Blitzkrieg, note, was not a tactical decision initially; rather, the Germans believed it was going to take months to invade France from what I know, and the penetration of France wasn't some complex tactical assault like, say, Napoleon's Toulon or Alexander's Gaugamela.

[Anonymous No.16278150]

Akhenaten (pbuh)

[Anonymous No.16278166]

>>16276371
tru, no wonder he conquered the west. he could just step on people.

[Anonymous No.16278167]

>>16275093
Chart is missing Deng Xiaoping

[Anonymous No.16278281]

>>16276123
>illiterate
didn't he learn a lot from alcuin?

[Anonymous No.16278295]

>>16275093
Monkee The 2nd