Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler

[nokhor]

i believe something along the lines of what simon appleton said. 'great' leaders are by definition freaks and abnormal, otherwise they wouldn't be 'great' leaders. 'great' being someone that impacts the world significantly, not necessarily in a beneficial manner. so you will always find some differences in their biography from a normal leader. richard the lionhearted was french, joan of arc was female etc. their alieness is not the defining charachteristic of what makes them 'great' but is usually there.

there are also interesting subsets of 'great' leaders other than national origins. caesar and genghis khan both came from upper crust families who had fallen on hard times. alexander, hannibal, and frederick all inherited military machines that had been created by their fathers.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Now that you mention it, we could expand our list.

More outsiders, from semi-peripheral areas, who took control of the main country and pushed it to great military successes, with insatiable expansionist policies:

Joan of Arc was from Lorraine - peripheral to French culture in her times.
Alexander the Great was from Macedonia.

With our trio of Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler they do share Simon's 'extremes of personal commitment needed to fulfill their ambitions'.

Do any of you know any others?

[Brutus]

Now that you mention it, we could expand our list.

More outsiders, from semi-peripheral areas, who took control of the main country and pushed it to great military successes, with insatiable expansionist policies:

Joan of Arc was from Lorraine - peripheral to French culture in her times.
Alexander the Great was from Macedonia.

With our trio of Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler they do share Simon's 'extremes of personal commitment needed to fulfill their ambitions'.

Do any of you know any others?

I don't think Joan of Arc and Alexander the Great fit the description;

Joan of Arc may have come from a marginal region of France and may have been from the 'politically marginal sex', but she never ruled anything, and was most likely used as a pawn by Charles VII and his advisors.

I also fail to see how Macedonia, after the conquests of Philip II, can be percieved as 'marginal'. Maybe it was culturally marginal to Greece and Persia, but it seems to me that Alexander's situation isn't comparable to those of Napoleon, Stalin and Hitler.

Maybe Byzantine emperor Basil I (who started life as a Macedonian peasant) and a Chinese emperor (can't remember his name) who also started as a peasant would fit into the category?

I think in going on with comparisons like this you will eventually find that most really famous and important 'rulers' in history didn't come from the established elite in some way or another. Probably because of this they had a reason to want to change things (in contrast to those who already occupied the highest echelons of society, and thus usually didn't have this drive).

[Kralizec]

Or emperor Justininian...
Conquered the bulk of the old empire, ordered the codification of Roman law, built the Hagia Sophia and started a golden age of architecture...
and to think he was the son of a slavonic peasant.

[matteus the inbred]

Maybe Byzantine emperor Basil I (who started life as a Macedonian peasant) and a Chinese emperor (can't remember his name) who also started as a peasant would fit into the category?

I think you're referring to Chu Yuan Chang, who, following the death of his parents from plague, became the leader of the Red Turbans cult and led a largely proletarian movement to remove the last members of the Yuan dynasty and found the Ming dynasty as Emperor Hung Wu in 1368.
He's a very good example actually, as his rule was autocratic, harsh and brutal, with periodic but inconsistent crackdowns on corruption and treason, which cost the lives of probably 40,000 people. He also put great emphasis on his humble origins and identified closely with 'the people' as opposed to the elites. He was militarily aggressive and his initial career and moral beliefs were influenced and helped by a less well known predecessor.