What do you think?
Rate this book
King of the Mountain: The Nature of Political Leadership
"People may choose to ignore their animal heritage by interpreting their behavior as divinely inspired, socially purposeful, or even self-serving, all of which they attribute to being human, but they masticate, fornicate, and procreate, much as chimps and apes do, so they should have little cause to get upset if they learn that they act like other primates when they politically agitate, debate, abdicate, placate, and administrate, too."
King of the Mountain presents the startling findings of Arnold M. Ludwig's eighteen-year investigation into why people want to rule. The answer may seem obvious―power, privilege, and perks―but any adequate answer also needs to explain why so many rulers cling to power even when they are miserable, trust nobody, feel besieged, and face almost certain death. Ludwig's results suggest that leaders of nations tend to act remarkably like monkeys and apes in the way they come to power, govern, and rule.
Profiling every ruler of a recognized country in the twentieth century―over 1,900 people in all―Ludwig establishes how rulers came to power, how they lost power, the dangers they faced, and the odds of their being assassinated, committing suicide, or dying a natural death. Then, concentrating on a smaller sub-set of 377 rulers for whom more extensive personal information was available, he compares six different kinds of leaders, examining their characteristics, their childhoods, and their mental stability or instability to identify the main predictors of later political success.
Ludwig's penetrating observations, though presented in a lighthearted and entertaining way, offer important insight into why humans have engaged in war throughout recorded history as well as suggesting how they might live together in peace.
King of the Mountain presents the startling findings of Arnold M. Ludwig's eighteen-year investigation into why people want to rule. The answer may seem obvious―power, privilege, and perks―but any adequate answer also needs to explain why so many rulers cling to power even when they are miserable, trust nobody, feel besieged, and face almost certain death. Ludwig's results suggest that leaders of nations tend to act remarkably like monkeys and apes in the way they come to power, govern, and rule.
Profiling every ruler of a recognized country in the twentieth century―over 1,900 people in all―Ludwig establishes how rulers came to power, how they lost power, the dangers they faced, and the odds of their being assassinated, committing suicide, or dying a natural death. Then, concentrating on a smaller sub-set of 377 rulers for whom more extensive personal information was available, he compares six different kinds of leaders, examining their characteristics, their childhoods, and their mental stability or instability to identify the main predictors of later political success.
Ludwig's penetrating observations, though presented in a lighthearted and entertaining way, offer important insight into why humans have engaged in war throughout recorded history as well as suggesting how they might live together in peace.
490 pages, Paperback
First published May 3, 2002
19 people are currently reading
478 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
April 19, 2025
3.75 stars
Humans are primates, but humans are people, too
"As it happens, humans, as primates, are very susceptible to the charisma, oratory, charm, self-assurance, and other influencing techniques used by those aspiring to be rulers, and so can be manipulated to respond uncritically to their exhortations."
The author seeks to understand the nature of political leadership using the sample of twentieth-century rulers. He divides all the rulers into several categories, namely: monarchs, visionaries, tyrants, authoritarians, leaders of emerging democracies (transitionals), and those of established democracies (democrats).
Ludwig relates the assorted facts from the personal lives and political careers of such twentieth-century rulers as Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, Mandela, Atatürk, de Gaulle, Indira Gandhi, Mussolini, Mao Zedong, Hitler, Idi Amin, Stalin, Salazar, Francois Duvalier, and many other lesser-known figures.
Despite this variety, I did not feel that the book overloaded me with names, events, and facts (or in some cases, rumors). This work brings together history (the author emphasizes that he is not a historian) and psychological (or even psychiatric) insights. Although it is full of statistical information, the writing style is not foreign to ironic observations and sarcasm, and that helped me to get through it.
This study operates with multiple variables while looking for patterns in different types of rulers. We learn about rates of alcoholism among the rulers in the sample, which types of rulers are more prone to depression, mania, and anxiety, and whether certain patterns can be traced in their childhood and youthful behavior.
Being at the top has always been dangerous. Rulers and aspiring leaders have been threatened with imprisonment, exile, and assassination. Surviving an assassination attempt can increase one's political capital.
Why do individuals continue to compete for supreme power despite all the stress and potential danger that usually accompanies it?
According to Ludwig, our primate roots strongly influence the way we choose to govern and be governed. Humans often go to great lengths to hide these biological impulses in their sophisticated political practices and in finding pragmatic, nationalistic, pious, and other seemingly high-minded and/or thinly disguised excuses for what they do.
But certain scenarios of human behavior seem to be programmed into us, whether we admit it or not. The author's findings demonstrate certain similarities between humans and primates.
In a nutshell, Nature itself has programmed us to favor the dominant hierarchy and the alpha male at the top. The author insists that it is legitimate to use the pronoun "he" (instead of "she") for a ruler. It's a man's world. The history of female rulers in the 20th century only confirms this old maxim. The women who wielded real power (e.g., Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir) often needed to demonstrate the qualities traditionally considered "masculine".
Throughout history rulers and aspiring leaders have had to demonstrate certain distinctive attributes to compete for ultimate power in human society and to impose their will on others.
The traits associated with an alpha male are still important for leadership, even if they often appear in more vague ways.
It is not gratuitous that military-imbued language accompanies competition for leadership in most societies.
While I agree that biological factors and our primate nature play a notable role in political affairs and the governing process, I am not entirely convinced by the comparisons between the world order of gorillas and chimpanzees and that of humans. Great apes live in much smaller groups than, say, people in a 20th-century totalitarian state. Is it so natural for humans to be part of large states rather than communities of moderate size?
Humans have always inflicted violence on one another. They have found excuses to do so, such as the need to "civilize the other", to "deter aggression" or to "defend the honor of their country". While wars have always been an integral part of the human condition, what makes today's situation different from that of several centuries ago is our current weapons of mass destruction. They are capable of breaking any inherent limits that nature may have placed on us to ensure the survival of the species.
The author brings into the limelight the potential dangers of letting alpha male leaders reign without any constraints on their power in our world today. As democratic leaders are less likely to wage war than dictators, a global shift to democracy can reduce the risk of war. However, since not all democratic leaders are peace-loving, the problem will remain even in this positive scenario.
The likelihood of violent oppression and war seems greater the longer certain types of leaders hold power as "sooner or later opportunities are likely to appear for them to do what they are emotionally disposed to do."
The author expands on the distinction between the great (in the eyes of many) and the not-great rulers, offering his scale to assess the greatness of rulers. We may assume that these two types of rulers are different kinds of people in certain significant respects, and these differences often have a powerful impact on what they ultimately accomplish. Acknowledging the debatable nature of any such distinction, Ludwig offers seven attributes that may help in this assessment. The "seven pillars of political greatness" include dominance, contrariness, personal presence, change agent, vanity, courage, and a wary unease.
It was interesting to see how the author approaches the old debate about the great man versus historical necessity. He suggests that "the great man" should be seen as a political catalyst.
The personal characteristics of people in power matter. Different personalities fit different types of systems. It seems that individuals with certain personal attributes are more apt to become tyrants, those with other traits authoritarians, and so on.
Paradoxical or not, the author suggests that leaders with dementia or some kind of mental health problem can perform just as well as their more sane counterparts.
The complex issues addressed in this study naturally do not allow clear-cut answers. I echo the author that the primate model of ruling is neither commendable nor condemnable. It has its strengths, and it "has helped to get us where we are," for better or worse. If we want the majority in society to devalue the display of alpha-maleness, perhaps we should try to make the system more "feminine" in terms of empathy and an irenic approach to problems that arise. It means working to change things in the present, while accepting the past as it was, eschewing applying a modern lens to it, and acknowledging that the norms and challenges that people and rulers face can change.
To sum up, this was not an easy read, some of the points here were obvious, others seemed a bit controversial, but I find it a stimulating and insightful reading experience.
Humans are primates, but humans are people, too
"As it happens, humans, as primates, are very susceptible to the charisma, oratory, charm, self-assurance, and other influencing techniques used by those aspiring to be rulers, and so can be manipulated to respond uncritically to their exhortations."
The author seeks to understand the nature of political leadership using the sample of twentieth-century rulers. He divides all the rulers into several categories, namely: monarchs, visionaries, tyrants, authoritarians, leaders of emerging democracies (transitionals), and those of established democracies (democrats).
Ludwig relates the assorted facts from the personal lives and political careers of such twentieth-century rulers as Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, Mandela, Atatürk, de Gaulle, Indira Gandhi, Mussolini, Mao Zedong, Hitler, Idi Amin, Stalin, Salazar, Francois Duvalier, and many other lesser-known figures.
Despite this variety, I did not feel that the book overloaded me with names, events, and facts (or in some cases, rumors). This work brings together history (the author emphasizes that he is not a historian) and psychological (or even psychiatric) insights. Although it is full of statistical information, the writing style is not foreign to ironic observations and sarcasm, and that helped me to get through it.
This study operates with multiple variables while looking for patterns in different types of rulers. We learn about rates of alcoholism among the rulers in the sample, which types of rulers are more prone to depression, mania, and anxiety, and whether certain patterns can be traced in their childhood and youthful behavior.
Being at the top has always been dangerous. Rulers and aspiring leaders have been threatened with imprisonment, exile, and assassination. Surviving an assassination attempt can increase one's political capital.
Why do individuals continue to compete for supreme power despite all the stress and potential danger that usually accompanies it?
According to Ludwig, our primate roots strongly influence the way we choose to govern and be governed. Humans often go to great lengths to hide these biological impulses in their sophisticated political practices and in finding pragmatic, nationalistic, pious, and other seemingly high-minded and/or thinly disguised excuses for what they do.
But certain scenarios of human behavior seem to be programmed into us, whether we admit it or not. The author's findings demonstrate certain similarities between humans and primates.
In a nutshell, Nature itself has programmed us to favor the dominant hierarchy and the alpha male at the top. The author insists that it is legitimate to use the pronoun "he" (instead of "she") for a ruler. It's a man's world. The history of female rulers in the 20th century only confirms this old maxim. The women who wielded real power (e.g., Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir) often needed to demonstrate the qualities traditionally considered "masculine".
Throughout history rulers and aspiring leaders have had to demonstrate certain distinctive attributes to compete for ultimate power in human society and to impose their will on others.
The traits associated with an alpha male are still important for leadership, even if they often appear in more vague ways.
In democracies there are no outright physical battles to establish political dominance among contestants, but something metaphorically equivalent still takes place during elections. It is therefore no accident that so much military terminology should be used to describe political “campaigns.” Opponents do “battle” and “face off” against each other in debates and speeches. They raise a “war chest” to support their campaign. They classify others as “doves or hawks.”
It is not gratuitous that military-imbued language accompanies competition for leadership in most societies.
While I agree that biological factors and our primate nature play a notable role in political affairs and the governing process, I am not entirely convinced by the comparisons between the world order of gorillas and chimpanzees and that of humans. Great apes live in much smaller groups than, say, people in a 20th-century totalitarian state. Is it so natural for humans to be part of large states rather than communities of moderate size?
Humans have always inflicted violence on one another. They have found excuses to do so, such as the need to "civilize the other", to "deter aggression" or to "defend the honor of their country". While wars have always been an integral part of the human condition, what makes today's situation different from that of several centuries ago is our current weapons of mass destruction. They are capable of breaking any inherent limits that nature may have placed on us to ensure the survival of the species.
The author brings into the limelight the potential dangers of letting alpha male leaders reign without any constraints on their power in our world today. As democratic leaders are less likely to wage war than dictators, a global shift to democracy can reduce the risk of war. However, since not all democratic leaders are peace-loving, the problem will remain even in this positive scenario.
The likelihood of violent oppression and war seems greater the longer certain types of leaders hold power as "sooner or later opportunities are likely to appear for them to do what they are emotionally disposed to do."
The author expands on the distinction between the great (in the eyes of many) and the not-great rulers, offering his scale to assess the greatness of rulers. We may assume that these two types of rulers are different kinds of people in certain significant respects, and these differences often have a powerful impact on what they ultimately accomplish. Acknowledging the debatable nature of any such distinction, Ludwig offers seven attributes that may help in this assessment. The "seven pillars of political greatness" include dominance, contrariness, personal presence, change agent, vanity, courage, and a wary unease.
It was interesting to see how the author approaches the old debate about the great man versus historical necessity. He suggests that "the great man" should be seen as a political catalyst.
Once we realize that rulers and their achievements are yoked together in much the same way that specific chemical catalysts and their particular reactants are, we begin to grasp what makes certain political leaders great. Great rulers do not create the historical climate of their times before they come to power or even the potential range of options realistically available to them, but they do have the ability to capitalize on certain opportunities that other potential rulers may not fully apprehend and, by virtue of their particular personal characteristics, exercise options that other potential rulers might not choose or ever see.
The personal characteristics of people in power matter. Different personalities fit different types of systems. It seems that individuals with certain personal attributes are more apt to become tyrants, those with other traits authoritarians, and so on.
Paradoxical or not, the author suggests that leaders with dementia or some kind of mental health problem can perform just as well as their more sane counterparts.
The complex issues addressed in this study naturally do not allow clear-cut answers. I echo the author that the primate model of ruling is neither commendable nor condemnable. It has its strengths, and it "has helped to get us where we are," for better or worse. If we want the majority in society to devalue the display of alpha-maleness, perhaps we should try to make the system more "feminine" in terms of empathy and an irenic approach to problems that arise. It means working to change things in the present, while accepting the past as it was, eschewing applying a modern lens to it, and acknowledging that the norms and challenges that people and rulers face can change.
To sum up, this was not an easy read, some of the points here were obvious, others seemed a bit controversial, but I find it a stimulating and insightful reading experience.
January 27, 2022
Holding a position of executive leadership in any country is unforgiving, thankless, and also deadly. Of the 1,941 heads of state that ruled between 1900 and 2000, 25% were in their positions for only one year or less, and a not-insignificant minority died by assassination, execution, or suicide in office. The likelihood of "good outcomes" in the game of leadership (i.e., resigning voluntarily or dying of natural causes in office) is small. The way up to the leadership is brutal - 40% of leaders spent time in prison before going to office, largely for their political reasons, but at a much higher rate than any other job. For the 377 leaders for whom there is sufficient info to judge, many suffered psychological illnesses and distress (there is some variance based on the type of the leader they were). Many had depression (60% of British PMs had some depression of some kind, but no tyrants did); but tyrants did have a high incidence of insanity and anxiety, and leaders of all types suffered from alcoholism and drug abuse largely above the rate of the average population.
The book's main question is why anyone want a job like that. The author thinks it is because of an evolutionarily-rooted, ape-like desire to be the alpha male, and the profile of people who pursue the head of state position supports this. A vast proportion were not monogamous before their tenure, and a significant number used their newfound position to expand their polygamous behaviour. Many played and captained team sports in youth which honed their aggression. Almost all betrayed their political mentors. And in the case of the most tyrannical leaders (Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot), all of them were estranged from and despised their fathers.
4.5 stars for interesting analysis, even though some judgements are speculative and unscientific (e.g., did Nixon have paranoia, did Reagan have dementia, etc.). I still think that many leaders genuinely believed that what they did was for the good of their country, even for some of the most misguided.
The book's main question is why anyone want a job like that. The author thinks it is because of an evolutionarily-rooted, ape-like desire to be the alpha male, and the profile of people who pursue the head of state position supports this. A vast proportion were not monogamous before their tenure, and a significant number used their newfound position to expand their polygamous behaviour. Many played and captained team sports in youth which honed their aggression. Almost all betrayed their political mentors. And in the case of the most tyrannical leaders (Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot), all of them were estranged from and despised their fathers.
4.5 stars for interesting analysis, even though some judgements are speculative and unscientific (e.g., did Nixon have paranoia, did Reagan have dementia, etc.). I still think that many leaders genuinely believed that what they did was for the good of their country, even for some of the most misguided.
March 16, 2015
This is the second Arnold Ludwig book I've read and I think I feel the same about him as I do about Jared Diamond. He writes about interesting subjects, has some good things to say but he's definitely not my favorite. His main premise with this book is that the lust for power comes from our instinct to crave alpha-male status. In my opinion that idea is basically correct but it's also an overly simplified half truth. He says things like "people want to rule for the same reason they want a ruler. It's the natural order of things" and something like war tends to bring peace because it's in the conquerors interest to install peace in his new territories. These ideas work with small bands of chimps, not hundreds of millions of humans following the same sociopathic leader. That arrangement has absolutely nothing to do with "the natural order" and certainly doesn't create stability. Missing that mistake leads him to some relatively worthless conclusions like we need better ways to screen potential leaders for personality flaws that are likely to make them more corrupt, as if there's no problem with the system they're in charge of in general and anyone who desires to be in charge of hundreds of millions of people even has the potential to not fit into that category. His ideas also don't do a good job explaining why there are so many women who crave power or why so many males don't show any interest in it at all. While I agree that our primate instincts do play a larger role in such things than most of us want to believe, especially when it comes to trying to get laid, I think there's more to it than just these lingering animal instincts. There's other interesting ideas he could have gotten into like the analogies of video game players losing touch with reality as they become focused on beating their high scores or drug addicts who need more and more for the same high, etc.
I noticed a bunch of bad criticisms of this book from feminists claiming this guy is basically a chauvinist pig trying to justify patriarchy or something. He does use his "natural order" analogy for patriarchal family structure in our ancestors but he doesn't say he approves of us living that way. A lot of the writers I like actually fit into the eco-feminist mold and I find it really annoying how they feel a need to attack anyone who points out that nature doesn't always fit with our values. Trying to make a case for a totally egalitarian or even matriarchal human prehistory is pretty ridiculous. Anthropologists have shown that although many, possibly even most, hunter gatherer and horticultural societies were more equal and peaceful, the potential was always there for male dominance and cultish behavior. Feminists point out themselves that many of these cultures developed ways to prevent leaders from dominating everyone else. There wouldn't be any need for these cultural constraints if these flaws weren't in our nature to begin with. So even our hunter gatherer ancestors weren't following "the natural order" but instead were doing what humans have always done, deciding how their societies should function themselves (not to say that this totally disconnects us from our instincts). One of the ideas used to counter arguments for simpler lifestyles all the time is that either leaders will emerge within the group or nearby empires will inevitably just conquer them from outside. Well, yeah it has been playing out that way for a while but that doesn't mean we should just submit to perpetual imperialism. The only reason the cultural constraints that worked in the past aren't working now is that more power is accumulating in fewer hands, and we're all contributing to that at our jobs every day. Rome destroyed their surrounding environment for the weapons they used to build their empire just as we're destroying the entire planet now. I really can't respect the idea that making empires more tolerable is our only option. For anyone who agrees with that I highly recommend looking into the anti-civ arguments. They have their own flaws as well but all these other guys are really missing the big picture.
I noticed a bunch of bad criticisms of this book from feminists claiming this guy is basically a chauvinist pig trying to justify patriarchy or something. He does use his "natural order" analogy for patriarchal family structure in our ancestors but he doesn't say he approves of us living that way. A lot of the writers I like actually fit into the eco-feminist mold and I find it really annoying how they feel a need to attack anyone who points out that nature doesn't always fit with our values. Trying to make a case for a totally egalitarian or even matriarchal human prehistory is pretty ridiculous. Anthropologists have shown that although many, possibly even most, hunter gatherer and horticultural societies were more equal and peaceful, the potential was always there for male dominance and cultish behavior. Feminists point out themselves that many of these cultures developed ways to prevent leaders from dominating everyone else. There wouldn't be any need for these cultural constraints if these flaws weren't in our nature to begin with. So even our hunter gatherer ancestors weren't following "the natural order" but instead were doing what humans have always done, deciding how their societies should function themselves (not to say that this totally disconnects us from our instincts). One of the ideas used to counter arguments for simpler lifestyles all the time is that either leaders will emerge within the group or nearby empires will inevitably just conquer them from outside. Well, yeah it has been playing out that way for a while but that doesn't mean we should just submit to perpetual imperialism. The only reason the cultural constraints that worked in the past aren't working now is that more power is accumulating in fewer hands, and we're all contributing to that at our jobs every day. Rome destroyed their surrounding environment for the weapons they used to build their empire just as we're destroying the entire planet now. I really can't respect the idea that making empires more tolerable is our only option. For anyone who agrees with that I highly recommend looking into the anti-civ arguments. They have their own flaws as well but all these other guys are really missing the big picture.
July 18, 2022
"While being intelligent, competent, well-educated, and emotionally stable does not bar you from holding high office, you also can be the ruler of a nation if you have never read a book, do not know how to make a budget, still count with your fingers, take delight in murdering and torturing people, stay zonked out on drugs or alcohol during cabinet meetings, pay more attention to the imaginary voices in your head than to your advisors, or, simply put, are ignorant, demented, or crazy. With notable exceptions, the one thing you cannot be as a ruler is a woman." - Arnold M Ludwig
I found out about this book from this Youtube Video essay, which effectively summarizes its premise and conclusions.
King of the Mountain is an amazing explanation of why psychos like Trump and Putin, rather than nerds like me (or the multitudes of capable women), attain power over the life and death of civilizations. The continued survival of our species is hampered by our biological instincts to reward whoever is the most aggressive caveman. I cherished the author's sardonic tone about this predicament, which permeates every page. This read was my political junkie & history nerd-brain's dream. The author's analysis and brilliant ranking system for political leaders helped clarify my confusion about humanity, especially after having read books like Atrocities that left a bitter taste in the mouth.
"Instead of seeking a strict causal relationship between the decisions and actions of rulers and certain ensuing political happenings, which forces you into a conceptual corner, I have come to the conclusion that a more appropriate model for interpreting the role of great rulers is to look upon them as political catalysts rather than causal agents who facilitate or inhibit the expression of certain social reactions that have the historical potential for happening. Since the role of the great man remains essential for the realization or prevention of certain events, but not in a strictly causal way, the debate over whether these rulers were personally responsible for causing these outcomes or merely served as stewards for their inevitable occurrence becomes moot."
"Just as it is logically imprecise to say that a specific catalyst "causes" a particular chemical reaction, since the potential for that reaction already exists or the reaction is already happening but at a very slow or negligible speed, it is not valid to look upon the great ruler as being causally responsible for the unfolding of certain major political events. As with the chemical catalyst, the great ruler becomes a facilitator or inhibitor of historical events, whose antecedents lay dormant, awaiting the proper catalyst, or already were in the process of unfolding but in a barely noticeable way. In a sense, the great man gives these potential political happenings a nudge, sometimes a shove, and occasionally a violent shake, but he does not "cause" them in a strictly logical sense. By definition, he cannot cause what does not have the potential for being what it becomes. However, because he is not the direct causal agent for those momentous events attributed to him does not mean that he is not a critical factor in their eventual emergence. Had the great ruler not appeared on the scene at an opportune time, the potential for those momentous events may not have been realized when they were. By being yoked together, the great ruler and his political legacy give each other meaning."
This books pairs well with Sex and World Peace, like a shot and chaser. The 21st century can hopefully have more women in leadership roles. - 7/13/22
I found out about this book from this Youtube Video essay, which effectively summarizes its premise and conclusions.
King of the Mountain is an amazing explanation of why psychos like Trump and Putin, rather than nerds like me (or the multitudes of capable women), attain power over the life and death of civilizations. The continued survival of our species is hampered by our biological instincts to reward whoever is the most aggressive caveman. I cherished the author's sardonic tone about this predicament, which permeates every page. This read was my political junkie & history nerd-brain's dream. The author's analysis and brilliant ranking system for political leaders helped clarify my confusion about humanity, especially after having read books like Atrocities that left a bitter taste in the mouth.
"Instead of seeking a strict causal relationship between the decisions and actions of rulers and certain ensuing political happenings, which forces you into a conceptual corner, I have come to the conclusion that a more appropriate model for interpreting the role of great rulers is to look upon them as political catalysts rather than causal agents who facilitate or inhibit the expression of certain social reactions that have the historical potential for happening. Since the role of the great man remains essential for the realization or prevention of certain events, but not in a strictly causal way, the debate over whether these rulers were personally responsible for causing these outcomes or merely served as stewards for their inevitable occurrence becomes moot."
"Just as it is logically imprecise to say that a specific catalyst "causes" a particular chemical reaction, since the potential for that reaction already exists or the reaction is already happening but at a very slow or negligible speed, it is not valid to look upon the great ruler as being causally responsible for the unfolding of certain major political events. As with the chemical catalyst, the great ruler becomes a facilitator or inhibitor of historical events, whose antecedents lay dormant, awaiting the proper catalyst, or already were in the process of unfolding but in a barely noticeable way. In a sense, the great man gives these potential political happenings a nudge, sometimes a shove, and occasionally a violent shake, but he does not "cause" them in a strictly logical sense. By definition, he cannot cause what does not have the potential for being what it becomes. However, because he is not the direct causal agent for those momentous events attributed to him does not mean that he is not a critical factor in their eventual emergence. Had the great ruler not appeared on the scene at an opportune time, the potential for those momentous events may not have been realized when they were. By being yoked together, the great ruler and his political legacy give each other meaning."
This books pairs well with Sex and World Peace, like a shot and chaser. The 21st century can hopefully have more women in leadership roles. - 7/13/22
January 29, 2022
Mi héroe medible
El doctor Arnold M. Ludwig es un prominente profesor universitario de psiquiatría, bien conocido por sus extensos estudios de liderazgo. Ha escrito un libro, King of the Mountain defendiendo que son ciertos rasgos de personalidad que determinan liderazgo y su nivel. Y más importante, muestra que estos rasgos son medibles.
En su libro, el profesor hace una lista de estos rasgos que llama, "Siete Pilares del Liderazgo". Son:
1. Pasión para dominación
2. Tomar de desafíos y riesgos
3. Carisma
4. La voluntad de transformar
5. Confianza en sí mismo
6. Coraje
7. Cautela
Ha comenzado su estudio con varios miles de líderes de todas las edades en todas partes del mundo. Luego, redujo su lista a 377 líderes solo del siglo veinte. Utilizando su Escala de Grandeza Política, midió la posesión e intensidad de estos siete rasgos en cada líder. Para puntuarlos y clasificarlos según el nivel de grandeza, aplicó varios métodos estadísticos y matemáticas. El resultado fue una puntuación de 2 puntos por el peor a 31 puntos por el más grande de todos.
Ahora, daré unos nombres de líderes como ejemplos para ilustrar qué tipo de líder había sido puntuado alto o bajo. Pero, antes de hacerlo, debo advertirle que esta puntuación no tiene nada que ver con si lo fueron ángeles o demonios. Refleja simplemente el resultado matemático de un análisis estadístico.
La categoría de 10 puntos y menos es para los líderes peores como: Milosevic de Yugoslavia, Somoza de Nicaragua e Idi Amin de Uganda.
La categoría de 11 a 20 puntos es para los líderes mediocres. Aquí, hay la mayoría de los 377 líderes. Algunos de ellos son Chamberlain, Begin, Arafat, Hindenburg, Hirohito, Khruschev, Venizelos y Taft.
La categoría de 21 a 29 puntos es para los grandes líderes. Algunos de ellos son Franco, Gorbachov, Hitler, Nehru, Truman, Mussolini, Ho Chi Minh, de Gaulle, Den Xiaoping y Lenin.
Hay sólo dos hombres de 30 puntos que se califican como los muy grandes líderes. Son Mao Zedung y Franklin Roosevelt.
Por último, sólo hay un líder con una puntuación de grandeza política superior a 30 puntos lo que lo convierte en el más grande de muy grandes líderes del siglo veinte.
Siendo el genio militar que era, este líder lanzó y dirigió una guerra nacional, expulsando a Gran Bretaña, Francia, Italia, Rusia y Grecia de su patria que se había partido entre estos seis países con al fin de la Primera Guerra Mundial.
Siendo el visionario que era, reemplazó la monarquía arcaica del país por una república constitucional.
Siendo el reformador que era, transformó una nación atrasada a uno con fervor revolucionario por el progreso y la modernización a través de sus reformas civiles, jurídicas, económicas, políticas y culturales.
Su derrota del imperialismo inspiró más tarde a muchas naciones colonizadas a luchar por la independencia.
Y lo hizo todo en su vida de sólo 57 años.
Su nombre es Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
Y él es mi héroe medible.
El doctor Arnold M. Ludwig es un prominente profesor universitario de psiquiatría, bien conocido por sus extensos estudios de liderazgo. Ha escrito un libro, King of the Mountain defendiendo que son ciertos rasgos de personalidad que determinan liderazgo y su nivel. Y más importante, muestra que estos rasgos son medibles.
En su libro, el profesor hace una lista de estos rasgos que llama, "Siete Pilares del Liderazgo". Son:
1. Pasión para dominación
2. Tomar de desafíos y riesgos
3. Carisma
4. La voluntad de transformar
5. Confianza en sí mismo
6. Coraje
7. Cautela
Ha comenzado su estudio con varios miles de líderes de todas las edades en todas partes del mundo. Luego, redujo su lista a 377 líderes solo del siglo veinte. Utilizando su Escala de Grandeza Política, midió la posesión e intensidad de estos siete rasgos en cada líder. Para puntuarlos y clasificarlos según el nivel de grandeza, aplicó varios métodos estadísticos y matemáticas. El resultado fue una puntuación de 2 puntos por el peor a 31 puntos por el más grande de todos.
Ahora, daré unos nombres de líderes como ejemplos para ilustrar qué tipo de líder había sido puntuado alto o bajo. Pero, antes de hacerlo, debo advertirle que esta puntuación no tiene nada que ver con si lo fueron ángeles o demonios. Refleja simplemente el resultado matemático de un análisis estadístico.
La categoría de 10 puntos y menos es para los líderes peores como: Milosevic de Yugoslavia, Somoza de Nicaragua e Idi Amin de Uganda.
La categoría de 11 a 20 puntos es para los líderes mediocres. Aquí, hay la mayoría de los 377 líderes. Algunos de ellos son Chamberlain, Begin, Arafat, Hindenburg, Hirohito, Khruschev, Venizelos y Taft.
La categoría de 21 a 29 puntos es para los grandes líderes. Algunos de ellos son Franco, Gorbachov, Hitler, Nehru, Truman, Mussolini, Ho Chi Minh, de Gaulle, Den Xiaoping y Lenin.
Hay sólo dos hombres de 30 puntos que se califican como los muy grandes líderes. Son Mao Zedung y Franklin Roosevelt.
Por último, sólo hay un líder con una puntuación de grandeza política superior a 30 puntos lo que lo convierte en el más grande de muy grandes líderes del siglo veinte.
Siendo el genio militar que era, este líder lanzó y dirigió una guerra nacional, expulsando a Gran Bretaña, Francia, Italia, Rusia y Grecia de su patria que se había partido entre estos seis países con al fin de la Primera Guerra Mundial.
Siendo el visionario que era, reemplazó la monarquía arcaica del país por una república constitucional.
Siendo el reformador que era, transformó una nación atrasada a uno con fervor revolucionario por el progreso y la modernización a través de sus reformas civiles, jurídicas, económicas, políticas y culturales.
Su derrota del imperialismo inspiró más tarde a muchas naciones colonizadas a luchar por la independencia.
Y lo hizo todo en su vida de sólo 57 años.
Su nombre es Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
Y él es mi héroe medible.
May 2, 2020
Not a fan. I think it could have been a lot better. This book is a look at leadership through a mostly biological frame. This guy talks a big game about having done an analysis on 1941 leaders from the 1900 to 2000, but I thought his conclusions were pretty simple. Ultimately he says "Leaders lead because they need to lead" and proceeds to point to chimps and apes as our brotheren for understanding social hierarchies. It's a biological approach that seems to be popular in some circles. I don't disagree with it, but it seems overused here. Claiming that everything we do really is in an effort to get laid seems overly reductionist.
Theres also a fair amount of cart before the horse going on. He makes a big deal about how in the 1900's, leaders are pretty much only men. Which he pontificates upon, saying that if women were wily enough to get man to eat the apple, they should be able to sneak their way into politics. Besides relying on a fictional bible verse, if that were fundamentally true it would have predictive power. And while the majority of politicians are still men, we see an increase in female leadership over the last 20 years, which in my opinion, is a compelling refutation of the validity of this analysis.
Ultimately, I think the core issue with the book is that he thinks of leaders as solitary entities. Looking at individuals as existing entirely in a silo. Devoid from their relationship to their government, country, or system of governance. As anyone who has worked in a large company knows, the CEO only has so much impact. There are layers and layers of bureaucracy between the top and the actual enactment of laws, policy, and whatever else might be going on. So while there is a level of impact the current leadership of a country has, it is dwarfed by our modern system of having hundreds of layers of bureaucracy between the top and the populace.
Essentially, you have a book written by someone who backs up opinions with a lot of hand waving and pointing at "all the work they did." And while there's some interesting points. The value of the book is that made me think deeply at times about why I disagreed with so much of it.
Theres also a fair amount of cart before the horse going on. He makes a big deal about how in the 1900's, leaders are pretty much only men. Which he pontificates upon, saying that if women were wily enough to get man to eat the apple, they should be able to sneak their way into politics. Besides relying on a fictional bible verse, if that were fundamentally true it would have predictive power. And while the majority of politicians are still men, we see an increase in female leadership over the last 20 years, which in my opinion, is a compelling refutation of the validity of this analysis.
Ultimately, I think the core issue with the book is that he thinks of leaders as solitary entities. Looking at individuals as existing entirely in a silo. Devoid from their relationship to their government, country, or system of governance. As anyone who has worked in a large company knows, the CEO only has so much impact. There are layers and layers of bureaucracy between the top and the actual enactment of laws, policy, and whatever else might be going on. So while there is a level of impact the current leadership of a country has, it is dwarfed by our modern system of having hundreds of layers of bureaucracy between the top and the populace.
Essentially, you have a book written by someone who backs up opinions with a lot of hand waving and pointing at "all the work they did." And while there's some interesting points. The value of the book is that made me think deeply at times about why I disagreed with so much of it.
March 2, 2020
''Throughout history, rulers who attain legendary status often tend to be those who have conquered other nations, won major wars, ex-panded their country’s boundaries, founded new nations, forcibly transformed their societies, and imposed their own beliefs on their subjects.
In short, they have killed, plundered, oppressed, and destroyed. Rarely do rulers achieve greatness who have been ambassadors for peace, kept the status quo, defended free speech, promoted independent thinking, and avoided wars at all costs.''
This book is worth many years of work - the author has studied the leaders of 199 countries ruling through the entirety of the 20th century (a total of 1,941 rulers.) It is an icredibly well written and easy for the reader to understand, especially the political side of the historical events. It is a masterful work that holds a mirrow to our present leaders as well as what we can expect in the future.
In short, they have killed, plundered, oppressed, and destroyed. Rarely do rulers achieve greatness who have been ambassadors for peace, kept the status quo, defended free speech, promoted independent thinking, and avoided wars at all costs.''
This book is worth many years of work - the author has studied the leaders of 199 countries ruling through the entirety of the 20th century (a total of 1,941 rulers.) It is an icredibly well written and easy for the reader to understand, especially the political side of the historical events. It is a masterful work that holds a mirrow to our present leaders as well as what we can expect in the future.
March 7, 2023
I picked up this book at the library because I thought it was a sociology book. It was not. Ludwig states in the introduction that he is a psychiatrist, and that is the filter through which this book is written.
While I cannot agree with his premise - rulers have adapted simian traits to better rule - it was worth reading simply for his remarkable dry wit. I laughed, constantly.
Basically, he asks, and mostly answers, the questions of how rulers come to be, and how they manage to rule. Using evolution, and simian comparison, he states that rulers are biologically preprogrammed. A dictator is such because he has the evolutionary adaptions that allow him to flourish. Would a democratic leader be just as successful and effective on running the country? According to evolution, no. I am not an evolutionist, but Ludwig still raised some fascinating questions in my mind. How do people become the rulers they are?
For those who believe that the 19th Amendment has destroyed society (the most prevalent being patriarchal Christian men), it must be noted that no women has started a war. Ludwig analyzes the past 1000+ rulers of the 20th century, with a specific set of 377 used for discussion. As there were only a handful of women in that century, his focus group only includes men - though he does mention Indira Gandhi multiple times. Rulers like Margaret Thatcher have notable mentions, but neither women is used to make his points. They function as examples, rather than evidence. All the great leaders, both good and bad, have been men. This, of course, begs the question of if women could be great leaders, and capable of starting wars. Are we biologically less primed by evolution to capably rule, or are we simply oppressed? Given the chance, could there be a female Hitler?
It's a provocative question that will not be answered any time soon. Has evolution tamed the warmongering impulses of women, or do they simply lie dormant, waiting to be allowed to flourish.
The main goal of rulers is war. War to make them heros. War to conquer. War to let them achieve glory. War to let them wreak revenge. War simply because they like shooting guns. Violence is the answer to almost all of their issues.
I would be interested in reading an updated version, particularly after the Arab Spring, and fall of the Taliban. Angela Merkel would belong, and surely Elizabeth II as well.
It is, in the end, a thorough overview of the psychology of rulers. Whether or not you attribute that to evolution is up to you.
While I cannot agree with his premise - rulers have adapted simian traits to better rule - it was worth reading simply for his remarkable dry wit. I laughed, constantly.
Basically, he asks, and mostly answers, the questions of how rulers come to be, and how they manage to rule. Using evolution, and simian comparison, he states that rulers are biologically preprogrammed. A dictator is such because he has the evolutionary adaptions that allow him to flourish. Would a democratic leader be just as successful and effective on running the country? According to evolution, no. I am not an evolutionist, but Ludwig still raised some fascinating questions in my mind. How do people become the rulers they are?
For those who believe that the 19th Amendment has destroyed society (the most prevalent being patriarchal Christian men), it must be noted that no women has started a war. Ludwig analyzes the past 1000+ rulers of the 20th century, with a specific set of 377 used for discussion. As there were only a handful of women in that century, his focus group only includes men - though he does mention Indira Gandhi multiple times. Rulers like Margaret Thatcher have notable mentions, but neither women is used to make his points. They function as examples, rather than evidence. All the great leaders, both good and bad, have been men. This, of course, begs the question of if women could be great leaders, and capable of starting wars. Are we biologically less primed by evolution to capably rule, or are we simply oppressed? Given the chance, could there be a female Hitler?
It's a provocative question that will not be answered any time soon. Has evolution tamed the warmongering impulses of women, or do they simply lie dormant, waiting to be allowed to flourish.
The main goal of rulers is war. War to make them heros. War to conquer. War to let them achieve glory. War to let them wreak revenge. War simply because they like shooting guns. Violence is the answer to almost all of their issues.
I would be interested in reading an updated version, particularly after the Arab Spring, and fall of the Taliban. Angela Merkel would belong, and surely Elizabeth II as well.
It is, in the end, a thorough overview of the psychology of rulers. Whether or not you attribute that to evolution is up to you.
February 22, 2026
Read the book because I found JJ McCullough's video on it interesting. After reading the book, it seems kind of pseudo-scientific and I don't think I actually agree with its methodology. It was actually pretty fun to read through hence why I am rating it so well.
May 16, 2020
Not the best flow, but good research.
July 14, 2022
Reads like a university textbook but has a lot of interesting points
September 27, 2025
I find this book to be a mixed bag. The first 7 chapters are about why it is that men (it's nearly always men) try to get political power even though usually they're only there for a short time and a lot of others want to get rid of them (just like a game of king of the hill/mountain). The answer apparently is because humans are similar to primates the same things will happen i.e a male will try to dominate, copulate with the most females etc.
The last 3 chapters deal with what greatness is and which rulers were the greatest and these chapters were not so great. I knew from JJ McCullough's video that the Personal Greatness Scale wasn't a measure of how morally good a leader was (aside from how much or how little corruption they engaged in) but it has some problems nonetheless. There are 11 measurements with 2 having no default scores and of the ones who do have them the total default score is 5 and the highest possible score is 37 with none of the measurements having a minus score. Most of the measurements make sense like a leader who managed the economy well scores higher than one who did a bad job but on staying power and the population of a country it's very much of a case of he should have weighed and not numbered. A leader could do a terrible job of running China but if they ran China with its over 100 million people for 16 years that's a score of 5 each right away; already they're about 1/3 of the way to being as great as the highest scoring leader which is Ataturk, whom Ludwig clearly liked (he was a member of the Ataturk Society of America). Hitler (25) comes out a greater leader than John F Kennedy (15) and Mao in second with 30 a greater leader than Paul Keating (8). If anything if a leader was in power for over 16 years in a country of over 100 million people but did a bad job running the economy that should be a huge malus to their score, not the amount of people they ruled over for a long time more than making up for their bad handling of the economy.
There are 6 types of rulers listed in the book; monarchs, tyrants, visionaries, authoritarians, leaders of countries transitioning to democracy and leaders of established democracies. On a number of factors there are big differences but on some like marriage there's hardly any difference so I wonder why he bothered to note the outcomes. The lowest group were authoritarians (93% were married) and monarchs were the highest with 100%. That there was a 7% gap between the lowest and highest out of 6 groups doesn't tell me much.
Another issue is that some ruler types will have more for example children than others but of course some ruler types are more common than others in various different parts of the world and of course have different parts of the world have different cultures. I doubt that being a (male) ruler of an established democracy is why only 2% of them had a harem (that number seems higher than I would have thought) while 32% of (male) monarchs had a harem and I say this is because having a monarchy and a harem are both more common in the Middle East than in western Europe. Between some statistics being not much different and a lot possibly having more to do with culture than government type I wonder if pages 272-462 are of any use at all.
The last 3 chapters deal with what greatness is and which rulers were the greatest and these chapters were not so great. I knew from JJ McCullough's video that the Personal Greatness Scale wasn't a measure of how morally good a leader was (aside from how much or how little corruption they engaged in) but it has some problems nonetheless. There are 11 measurements with 2 having no default scores and of the ones who do have them the total default score is 5 and the highest possible score is 37 with none of the measurements having a minus score. Most of the measurements make sense like a leader who managed the economy well scores higher than one who did a bad job but on staying power and the population of a country it's very much of a case of he should have weighed and not numbered. A leader could do a terrible job of running China but if they ran China with its over 100 million people for 16 years that's a score of 5 each right away; already they're about 1/3 of the way to being as great as the highest scoring leader which is Ataturk, whom Ludwig clearly liked (he was a member of the Ataturk Society of America). Hitler (25) comes out a greater leader than John F Kennedy (15) and Mao in second with 30 a greater leader than Paul Keating (8). If anything if a leader was in power for over 16 years in a country of over 100 million people but did a bad job running the economy that should be a huge malus to their score, not the amount of people they ruled over for a long time more than making up for their bad handling of the economy.
There are 6 types of rulers listed in the book; monarchs, tyrants, visionaries, authoritarians, leaders of countries transitioning to democracy and leaders of established democracies. On a number of factors there are big differences but on some like marriage there's hardly any difference so I wonder why he bothered to note the outcomes. The lowest group were authoritarians (93% were married) and monarchs were the highest with 100%. That there was a 7% gap between the lowest and highest out of 6 groups doesn't tell me much.
Another issue is that some ruler types will have more for example children than others but of course some ruler types are more common than others in various different parts of the world and of course have different parts of the world have different cultures. I doubt that being a (male) ruler of an established democracy is why only 2% of them had a harem (that number seems higher than I would have thought) while 32% of (male) monarchs had a harem and I say this is because having a monarchy and a harem are both more common in the Middle East than in western Europe. Between some statistics being not much different and a lot possibly having more to do with culture than government type I wonder if pages 272-462 are of any use at all.
April 16, 2025
I read this book a few years back and it was one of my favorite non-fiction books. After reading it a few years later I think it still holds that mantle. In King of the Mountain Ludwig, a psychiatrist by training, attempts to analyze the nature of human leadership. He did this via an 18 year long project analyzing the character of every world leader in the 20th century, a pretty monumental task. Ludwig's thesis is that human leadership emerges from the fact that human societies need to have leaders, regardless of how qualified or capable they are, and the desire people have to lead basically is an outgrowth of the desire many men have to dominate over other men, in a way very reminiscent of our primate ancestors. Ludwig's thesis also centers around the idea that those who end up at the top of our hierarchies and who are the best at using the power associated with their roles generally have certain personality traits that make them more likely to head down that path. Most importantly, I find that Ludwig's conclusion that many of these traits are not necessarily positive traits (this isn't a self help book after all) and that the fact that these types of people rise to such prominent roles in our society can be attributed to many of the repeated issues in human society such as our propensity for war. Overall, I think Ludwig's book holds up to this day as an incredible analysis of the human condition and those who we elevate to such high status, and I would highly recommend it to anyone.
October 12, 2015
Insightful, humorous, statistically valid, scientific and amazing entry to the minds of world rulers. The examples of the current century to the ones depicted in this book are disturbing, but yet prove the validity of this humongous undertaking. Highly recommended reading to world tyrants, dictators, and wanna-be's
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews