Inspired by Kamino Neko’s comments here. The rules of establishing ‘toughness’ are the same - winning a mixed martial arts match regulated by Ultimate Fighting Championship rules (leaders who had the misfortune to be born before the UFC will have the rules carefully translated and explained). No weapons, just good old fashioned unarmed combat. As for ‘leader’ - king, president, prime minister, any recognised head of state and/or government. Can be selected from any point in their reign.
There’s general consensus that Russian president Vladimir ‘Bad Vlad’ Putin, who practices judo and is KGB trained, would clean up today. But if we had all of history’s leaders to choose from, who would be up there and how would Vlad hold up?
Would Teddy Roosevelt, a trained boxer and all-round badass, be ranked #1? Who would be the top contenders?
As much as I love Teddy Roosevelt, I think Putin would seriously outclass him.
TR would take it cheerfully and spend the next six months learning martial arts.
Abe Lincoln was a tall wrangly wrestler back in the day, but by the time he was President, Putin still would have clobbered him.
If you really want the toughest, you won’t find him in the modern age. It’s going to be one of those ancient or medieval rulers who led armies into battle and fought off assassination attempts with the points of their longswords. People like Cnut or Harold Godwinson, Chalemange or Alexander Nevsky, or maybe one of those late Roman generals who rose through the ranks and ended up seizing control of the empire for a few years or months. No modern leader can hope to match these.
Hand to hand only. Asking Charlemagne to bring a knife to a gunfight isn’t exactly fair on him.
Thought of some candidates who might give Vlad a run for his money, looking back into antiquity as Alessan suggested - Kings of Sparta. Leonidas was around 60 when he died but he was a product of the hardest warrior culture ever to exist, including the agoge from age 7.
I think Netanyahu would win against Caesar, but lose fighting Alexander. Caesar was primarily a statesman and politician which fuelled his military aspirations, but Alexander simply loved a ruck. Not to mention he’s far younger (reigned in his 20s). He’s used to the rough-and-tumble of barracks life and would be familiar with Greek pankration which is not a million miles away from MMA.
ETA;
Yep. They must be a recognised head of a government or head of a state though; deputies, generals etc need not apply.
No, with their own weapons- Charlemagne gets his sword vs Lee’s puny pistol.
Think that through- as soon as Charlemagne closes enough distance to get within sword range, Lee is SOL with the pistol.
Edit- but that’s a slippery slope. Never mind, no weapons.
But if it’s bare hands only, I wonder how Cortes would have fared against Atahualpa in single combat.
I’m not sure I follow you; you’re saying that Lee would take too long loading the pistol, it’s too inaccurate, Charlemagne would get the ‘dead man’s ten’ to shiv Lee? In any case that discussion ends when automatic weapons are invented, a ten year old girl from today with a Glock would put down Miyamoto Musashi with his katana but it says little about the individuals.
Gruga the Neanderthal chieftain of the Wolf Clan. His muscular attachments give him an edge over the aging idol of the boards, Vlad Putin. He breaks tree limbs by twisting them, a la Bigfoot, and he has tons of experience crushing his enemies and eating their marrow.
My vote goes to Kamehameha I, the great conqueror and king of Hawaii.
He is reputed to have started his career by moving - some say lifting - the 5000-lb Naha Stone. This may be open to doubt, but there is no question that he was enormously strong, ruthless, a natural warrior and leader.
He would have about as much trouble in a fight with Putin as Putin would with FDR.
The viking and other barbarian warlords were the first to come to mind for me. Someone bred and built in battle, particularly single-man warfare rather than organized-disciplined unit warfare seem good candidate for ass kicking.