[amanaplanacanal]

Only if you think a large empire is the epitome of success.

People have a tendency to look at the cruelest warriors of history and think that is success. Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar or Napoleon are not something to emulate. They were successful by causing horrific pain to a lot of people.

[FridayoLeary]

Success and greatness of historical figures do not mean they were moral heroes although people would like you to believe otherwise. King Example XIV of the 15th century might have been a really good guy but he never did anything so nobody knows or cares about him. His half brother and uncle killed him and invaded and subjugated 6 neighbouring states but was less bad then everyone else at the time so he's great and successful instead of a villain. I don't think there are rules, but i think anyone who generally advances progress instead of reversing it is considered great. Genghis Khan as far as i know didn't so he isn't. Julius Caesar did so he is.

[mosura]

Pure misandrist nonsense. You could have picked Hitler or Stalin to at least have half a point.

Napoleon spread enlightenment values that benefitted generations that came after. Julius Caesar took civilization across a continent. Deng Xiaoping was leader during Tianenmen Square but brought more people out of poverty than anyone else in history.

Being great means being able to do some things others do not like because the resulting upside is better for everyone.

[amanaplanacanal]

Sounds to me more like the winners writing the history. In other words, bullshit.

[mosura]

Napoleon or Julius Caesar won?

One was exiled, the other assassinated. They were in no position to write history.