Top 10 Historical Upgrades: Nations whose Rulers Went from Zero to Hero

We look at ancient Egypt, Rome and China, Medieval Europe and Modern America to find the best leader upgrades.  

Transcript

The Top 10 Greatest Upgrades of History:  Nations that Went from Zero to Hero

July 2025

“Of course, it is not enough to be a good man to be an effective ruler, and it never has been.”

George R. R. Martin

“Every ruler must remember three things. Firstly, that he rules man; secondly, that he rules according to law, and thirdly, that he does not rule forever.”

Agathon the poet

Two weeks ago, we provided you with history’s greatest downgrades, so now, cue the echo, we are giving you The Top Ten Greatest Upgrades of History!  A few criteria.  We try not to skip succession, so only direct hand-offs, though I do push the boundaries a bit on this point. This includes alternative governments, so no Louis XVI to Napoleon.  Moreover, I am trying to influence as much as I am to gain fame.   

Some honorable mentions: James Callaghan to Margaret Thatcher, Eastern Romans John I to Basil II, Caligula to Claudius, Tudors Mary I to Elizabeth I, Yorkist Richard III to Tudor Henry VII, Norman Eustace to Angevin King Henry II, Mongke to Kublai Khan, and Romanovs Feodor III to Peter the Great.  

10. Louis VII to Phillip II Augustus 

Four things would dominate the life of Louis VII.  The first was his first wife.  As the heiress to Aquitaine, one of the largest and richest provinces of France, Eleanor was considered the prize of Europe, and Louis married her during the time he began to exercise his kingship.  The problem was that it was a bad match, and after they divorced, she married the second person to dominate his life, Henry II, Count of Anjou, Duke of Normandy, and later, King of England.  When all of Henry’s possessions were combined with the Aquitaine, He ruled a medieval Empire stretching from Scotland to the Pyrenees.  Needless to say, these vast holdings dwarfed those of Louis.  The other two aspects of Louis’ life were the church and the Second Crusade, undertaken to show his devotion.  His Crusade failed miserably.  Louis was not an especially awful king, but time and again, he was outfoxed and overshadowed by Henry.  

Because cleverness and now sheer brawn were the way to deal with Henry’s house, the Angevins, Louis’s son, Phillip II, later called Augustus, had it in spades.  

Phillip gradually reconquered the French territories held by the kings of England and also furthered the royal domains northward into Flanders and southward into Languedoc. Phillip was also a significant figure in the Third Crusade to the Holy Land in 1191, alongside his rival Richard I, and like his father’s, Phillip’s Crusade failed to achieve its primary objective, the reconquest of Jerusalem. However, showing his ability to bend events to his goals, he used Richard’s late return from the Crusades (he was held prisoner in Austria for a time) to wreak havoc on English possessions. Moreover, when Richard died and his brother John became the English king and overlord of the Angevin Empire, Phillip had his way with him.  After conquering Normandy in 1202-3, in 1204, Philip subdued Maine, Touraine, Anjou, and most of Poitou with less difficulty.  

His conquests and strong government made him the wealthiest and most powerful king in Europe and prepared the way for France’s greatness in the 13th century.

9. Kamose, Upper Egypt, and Khamudi, Lower Egypt, to Ahmose I

When doing a podcast that spans not decades, but centuries, the source material differs greatly.  It is easier to find material closer to our time, but there is almost too much, and it gets harder the further back one goes.  Although finding 900 sources for Phillip II can be challenging, it is nothing compared to the task of going back 3,500 years for Khamudi and Ahmose I.  

The transition from Hyksos rulers to the founder of the New Kingdom is less documented. Khamudi is listed on the Turin canon (an ancient Egyptian hieratic papyrus that featured a line of kings). He was the last Hyksos king. Beyond this, only two scarab seals are firmly attributed to him, both from Jericho. Based on the scarcity of material dating to Khamudi’s reign, thinking that his reign must have been short, amounting to no more than a year. Therefore, we have to assume that he was not that effective or succumbed early to disease.

As with Khumudi, Kamose’s reign was short-lived, perhaps 4-5 years.  He ruled as the last king of the 17th Dynasty based at Thebes and was constantly at war with his Hyksos neighbors to the North in the lower Nile Delta and the ancient (and interesting kingdom in its own right) of Kush to the South.  There is no record of any successes against either of these adversaries.

On the other hand, it is not difficult to learn of Ahmose I’s many triumphs. He was not only a pharaoh and founder of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt, but the 18th Dynasty is the first in the New Kingdom. It was in this series of dynasties that ancient Egypt achieved the peak of its power. Ahmos I’s reign is usually dated to the mid-16th century BC at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age.

During his reign, Ahmose completed the conquest and expulsion of the Hyksos, restored Theban rule over Lower- and Upper Egypt, and successfully reasserted Egyptian power in its formerly subject territories of Nubia and Canaan. He then reorganized the administration of the country, reopened quarries, mines, and trade routes, and began massive construction projects of a type that had not been undertaken since the time of the Middle Kingdom, some 300 years prior. This building program culminated in the construction of the last pyramid built by native Egyptian rulers. 

8. Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan

Of all the lists, this is one to which I have to guard against bias.  Being both a conservative and someone alive in 1980, I will admit to a slight bias so that I will stick to a few facts. Reagan’s years saw the end of OPEC energy dominance, the end of the 1970s inflation that felled his two predecessors.  The beginning of the end of the Cold War.  Moreover, with a few blips, a strong economy that began in his first term and lasted another 25 years.   

However, I will provide contrasting speeches to emphasize the difference.  Though Carter never said the word “Malaise” in a famous speech about energy, he did say of America that, “The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart, soul, and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation.” At which point, Carter wanted to go on a listening tour.  He provided little in the way of solving the crisis of confidence.  

Contrast that with this: “They (the Democrats under Carter) expect you to tell your children that the American people no longer have the will to cope with their problems; that the future will be one of sacrifice and few opportunities. My fellow citizens, I utterly reject that view.” Reagan then cited the history of the nation and used that as a wellspring, “Together, let us make this a new beginning. Let us make a commitment to care for the needy; to teach our children the values and the virtues handed down to us by our families; to have the courage to defend those values and the willingness to sacrifice for them. Let us pledge to restore, in our time, the American spirit of voluntary service, of cooperation, of private and community initiative; a spirit that flows like a deep and mighty river through the history of our nation.” And, that is what he, and we, did.  

7. Humayun (Hoo Mai-yen) To Akbar 

Akbar, along with Edward I, is the only figure to appear on both this list and the Downgrades podcast from two weeks ago.  In a piece from the Times of India entitled “The Story of the Weakest Mughal Emperor in History, “His reign was marked by significant challenges, including internal family conflicts and external threats from rival rulers. Despite his efforts, Humayun’s rule was characterized by instability and frequent losses, making him one of the weaker Mughal emperors. One of the most significant setbacks in Humayun’s reign was his defeat by Sher Shah Suri. In 1539, Humayun faced this adversary at the Battle of Chausa, where he suffered a crushing defeat. The following year, in 1540, Sher Shah decisively defeated Humayun at the Battle of Kannauj, forcing him to flee India and become an exile in the court of the Persian King.  

Humayun would return and eventually reassume his role of emperor, but the Mughals seemed destined to decline quickly. Sort of a flash in the pan Empire.  Except that one of the great rulers of history succeeded him.  

I will not give too much space to Akbar, as he got a number of words in that previous podcast, but here is just a partial list. Akbar enlarged the empire to include much of the Indian subcontinent through Mughal military, political, cultural, and economic dominance. He established a centralized system of administration and adopted a policy of conciliating conquered rulers through marriage and diplomacy. To preserve peace and order in a religiously and culturally diverse realm, he adopted policies that won him the support of his non-Muslim subjects, including abolishing the sectarian tax and appointing them to high civil and military posts.  Akbar developed a strong and stable economy, which tripled in size and wealth, leading to commercial expansion and greater patronage of an Indo-Persian culture. 

It was as if there were three successful reins in one.  

6. Edward II to Edward III 

Edward II, along with Akbar, is the only other historical figure to appear on both upgrade and downgrade lists.  His father was the mighty Edward I, who, given the weakness of his father, could have also been on the upgrade side. Such were the ups and downs of the Plantagenets, and really, my best argument against monarchial rule.  For every good ruler, there is a bad one, sometimes two.  

King of England from January 1327, Edward III was famous for his victories in the Hundred Years’ War, but he would also face many challenges after inheriting a chaotic and disorderly kingdom from his recently deposed father, Edward II.

His father had not only suffered a humiliating defeat by the Scots at Bannockburn, but his close personal relationships with “favorites” such as Piers Gaveston made him a source of much scrutiny.

In the end, his personal relationships would prove the death of Edward II, with his wife, Isabella of France, arranging with her lover, Roger Mortimer, to have him deposed. His imprisonment and death at Berkley Castle marked the beginning of Edward III’s ascension to power.  

Edward III transformed the Kingdom of England into one of the most formidable military powers in Europe. His fifty-year reign is one of the longest in English history, and saw vital developments in legislation and government, in particular the evolution of the English Parliament, as well as the ravages of the Black Death. He outlived his eldest son, Edward the Black Prince, and was succeeded by his grandson, Richard II.

Two critiques against Edward should be raised here.  First, his wars left England bankrupt, which created many of the issues that his headstrong grandson would have to manage.  And in his dotage, he took up with a woman 40 years his junior, lavishing lands and gifts on her and her family.  There is no fool like an old fool. Had he died just 10 years before his actual demise, he would probably be regarded as the greatest of England’s medieval kings.  As it stands, that title goes to his grandfather, who he resembled far, far more than his own father 

5.  The four Emperors to Vespasian 

Is this fair? I cannot say Nero to Vespasian because, well, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius.  Nevertheless, I cannot help but think that the four aforementioned Emperors, who all perished in 68 and 69 AD, comprise a composite of the incompetent at the end of the Julio Claudian dynasty.  However, just to note that we have four imperial demises, two by suicide and two by murder, marks a point at which Rome, without the family founded by Augustus around, could have fallen into anarchy.  But as happened so many times in Roman history, the right man showed up.  

Vespasian worked hard to restore law, order, and self-respect to Rome after the civil war. He established the new Flavian Dynasty. By raising taxes and reclaiming public land, Vespasian was able to fill the city’s vaults with cold, hard cash. He used some of this money on a massive building program, which included temples, a theater, and early work on what would become the Colosseum.

He then turned his attention to the army. In a wholesale reorganization, he restored discipline, removed officers loyal to Vitellius, and ended the war in Judaea. In Britain, he conquered Wales and northern England.

Vespasian provided the first real stability since Claudius, 20 years earlier. Although he had gained his position through violence and was still a military dictator, he legitimized himself and his Dynasty by offering Rome a stable, peaceful future.

4. Numerian and Carinus to Diocletian 

Carinus has the reputation of being one of the worst Roman emperors. This infamy may have been encouraged by Diocletian. Nevertheless, if half of the lies were true, Carinus may not have been Caligula-level bad, but not good either. 

Numerian may have been of better character, but his mysterious death (alive one moment in Edessa) dead by the time his army reached Nicomedia) could have plunged the empire back into chaos when Diocletian defeated Carinus (or maybe Carinus won but was soon murdered) to take over.  In fairness, Diocletian took over a resurgent Empire due to the exertions of Aurelian and, to some extent, to Carinus’ father, Carus.  He also had the good luck to see a succession dispute roil the true Roman Rival, Sassanid Persia.  

However, he was a formidable ruler who ended a period of turmoil in the Roman world. Diocletian stabilized the Roman Empire but also carried out several reforms that bolstered the empire’s power and the emperor’s influence. To end bloody civil wars, Diocletian introduced a new system of government – the Tetrarchy. He also pursued economic reform, strengthening the currency and regulating prices and taxation. While Diocletian created the powerful foundation for the fourth-century Roman Empire, his experiment of ensuring a peaceful transition of power (he himself voluntarily abdicated) ultimately failed, leading Rome to another civil war.

I placed this case ahead of the Vespasian upgrade because in 69-70 the Roman state had not been through turmoil of the 200s empire. 

3. Peter III to Catherine the Great  

It is hard not to note the presence of a TV show called The Great.  It is one of those productions where black actors play Russian boyars and Catherine comes across less like a ruthless leader and more like a naïve girl navigating the Romanov Court.  Nevertheless, Nicholas Hoult’s masterful performance, though farcical, contains a hint of the actual Peter III.  

After a 186-day reign, Peter III was overthrown in a palace coup d'état orchestrated by his wife, and soon died under unclear circumstances. The official cause proposed by Catherine’s new government was that he died due to hemorrhoids. However, this explanation was met with skepticism, both in Russia and abroad, with notable critics such as Voltaire expressing doubt about the plausibility of death from such a condition. Peter may not have been quite the hapless figure as portrayed on The Great or by pre-1990 historians. However, the reality remains that in masculine Russia, he was dethroned by a woman who was not even Russian.  His grandfather, Peter the Great, would not have approved.

Catherine would go on to conquer the Ukraine after ending the Crimean Khanate, the last vestige of Mongol conquest. With the support of Great Britain, Russia colonized the territories of New Russia along the coasts of the Black and Azov Seas. In the west, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth—ruled by Catherine’s former lover, King Stanisław August Poniatowski—was eventually partitioned, with the Russian empire gaining the largest share. In the east, Russians became the first Europeans to colonize Alaska, establishing Russian America. 

She is often included in the ranks of the enlightened despots. As a patron of the arts, she presided over the age of the Russian Enlightenment.  Though she was no true reformer, there is little doubt she was a formidable figure who was not born to power, but seized it, in this case, from her hapless husband.  

2. Buchanan to Lincoln

One of the great aspects of George Washington was that, without the benefit of any previous presidents or even leaders of a continental-wide Republic.  Buchanan was like the anti-Washington, making, in hindsight, every wrong decision.  An argument could be made that he got a raw deal.  He acknowledged that, had he been elected in 1848, he would not have faced the dissolution of the union, despite running four times.  The reality is that his decisions significantly contributed to making a bad situation worse.  Buchanan’s actions, and at times his inactions, aggravated sectional tensions to the point where the union dissolved. One example was Buchanan’s belief that the 1957 Dred Scott decision would settle the slavery question, when it made it worse.  Though a Northerner from PA, Buchanan’s base was southern, so he advocated for Kansas to be admitted to the union as a slave state.  His inaction with John Brown’s “raid” aggravated sectional tensions; his inaction during the secession winter proved to be fatal, both to his reputation and, more importantly, to the union. Buchanan refused to take any action against the South, which enabled the creation and operation of the Confederate government, which possibly could have been prevented with decisive action. 

What can I write here about Lincoln that has not been written before?  I will, however, be assailing a group of Lost Causers on Twitter with a piece in the few weeks.  Suffice it to say, though I believe in experience and expertise, it was not to be in this case.  Buchanan had been a Senator, Secretary of State, and Minister to both Russia and Great Britain. In all 30 years of service at the national level.  Lincoln served one term in the House of Representatives.  

1.  Ziying to Liu Bang

There is not too much to say about Ying Ziying, also known as Ziying, King of Qin. He was the third and last ruler of the Qin dynasty of China. His realm was a fragmentation of the once mighty Qin Empire, and his reign lasted for 46 days. Unlike his predecessor, he ruled as a king instead of an emperor.  After a series of Chinese civil wars, a peasant who had risen in the Qin dynasty named Liu Bang emerged as the winner and later emperor. 

Why number 1.  After the fall of the Qin after just three emperors, China could have gone the way of Western Europe after the fall of Rome—a series of divided kingdoms eternally vying for supremacy.  Because of the unification of the Han under Liu Bang, Chinese history became a series of unifying dynasties that have preserved the core of the state up until our present day.  Would there have been a Song, Tang, Yuan, Ming, or Qing without the Han? I think Europe provides that example.  Moreover, China’s importance in history is evident in its complete dominance of Eastern Asia, as well as its significant contributions to inventions and wealth.  

Qin Shi Huangdi, or the First Emperor of Qin, is usually credited with the unification of China. However, the Qin Dynasty collapsed within a couple of years of his death, and China fell into anarchy and disorder as powerful warlords vied for power. One of the rebel leaders, a man of humble birth named Liu Bang, eventually triumphed over his rivals and founded the Han Dynasty, which would rule over a reunified China for the next four centuries. Liu Bang eventually took the title of Gaozu Emperor.  Liú Bāng consolidated his empire by subduing the unruly kings, and re-centralized China based on the Qín model. He soon annexed most of the kingdoms and established principalities, gradually replacing the original vassals with his sons and relatives as princes. Since the economy had been devastated by the war following the demise of the Qín Dynasty, he reduced taxes and forced labor, developed agriculture, and restricted spending. However, in response to what he saw as the decadence of Qín merchants, he levied heavy taxes on them and imposed legal restrictions on commerce.

The cultural repression of the Qin dynasty was reversed, and scholarship was revived.

Again, why first?  Under the Han dynasty, the Chinese imperial system assumed most of the characteristics that it was to retain until it was overthrown in 1911/12. Though he reigned from 206 to 195 BC, his influence on China for the next 2,000 years, and China’s influence upon the world, emanated from this incredible upgrade.