As someone who recently finished reading 'The Iron Kingdom', I second Mr Putin33's nomination.

(Half seriously) Adolf Hitler - He would likely be well on his way to 18 centers before the rest of the players knew the game had started...

I third Putin33's nomination.

It's hard to argue with Frederick the Great, but I think that Bismark comes close. He pretty much singlehandedly forged Germany into a great power. And he was a master of realpolitik (practically the creator of the concept): it encapsulates what it means to play Diplomacy.

Triumvir has a point: Hitler led a minor party from nothing into parliament, then into a coalition, and then stabbed his alliance. Real feel for Diplomacy, yes?
Then he entered the Nazi-Soviet Pact which meant he did not have to worry about an attack from the East. He knocked out France despite British alliance (how many Dip players can say that?) and figured that as Brit was beaten, he could pay full attention to Russia and have England later. In Dip this might have worked, but unfortunately in the real world there was the USA...

Keeping in mind that in a game of Diplomacy, Britain, Russia and France aren't sitting on their hands, afraid to go to war... nonetheless he was obviously a great diplomat. How many times in history has a democratic parliament willingly voted itself out of existence?

I disagree. Hitler was charismatic and had some understanding of how to play off Germany's insecurities, but he was ideologically motivated, lacked real diplomatic skills, and had a weak grasp of strategy. As for defeating France with British support there were a number of reasons why it was successful and they have little to do with his own diplomatic or strategic abilities. The Manstein plan was the work of the German General staff and only approved by Hitler, France was facing national disunity, Britain was largely disarmed, etc. The comparison to a diplomacy game doesn't really make sense. Also, since when is turning away from an enemy you are at war with to face one that is at peace with you good diplomacy? Even if an invasion of England was impossible diving headlong into the endless Russian steppes was simply not a good idea.

@gigantor - Many more times than you imagine, depending on how you define "willingly voted itself out of existence". The Reichstag didn't accept Hitler as dictator, only as Chancellor. His rise to true authoritarian power came later. There are many documented historical cases of democratic assemblies handing the reigns to dictators in this manner.

Good points, nightlord, although I don't agree with all of them. Debating his achievements seems pointless as I detest the man's views and methods. Still, in 13 years (1929-1942) he went from nobody in a beaten, disgraced country to master of Europe. I think that says something.

You're right: I cannot deny that he was amazingly successful and a fascinating figure, but I feel he was more of a charismatic bully than a master of diplomacy.

Genghis Khan, diplomatic genius

and Hernan cortez while we are at it

You forgot President Bush. ;)

If we're going to moralize then nobody will ever be top diplomat. It's not as if Bismarck or Frederick II or anyone else was a nice human being.

Cortes was a diplomat - the Aztecs were destroyed by rival Mesoamerican tribes, with Cortes's assistance. Barely any Spaniards needed. Considering the influence Spain has had on an entire hemisphere, his achievements (militarily and culturally if not morally) are noteworthy.

I would throw up Metternich, Bismarck, Richelieu and Palmerston as runners-up to Frederick II.

What about someone completely different: David Ben-Gurion, first PM of Israel. He created the state of Israel despite the efforts of France, Britain and various Arab factions, all stronger than him. Even more impressively, he united Jews as had been done in their long long history only by Moses, the Maccabees and (perhaps) David.

and cortes did most of it himself, unless i am mistaken he had very little assistance from spain

I would say that while Cortez was skilled at playing the native tribes against the Aztecs it wasn't really his diplomatic skills that allowed him to conquer. His diplomatic accomplishments pale in comparison to those of Frederick or Bismark.

he had like 100 guys, with ineffective firearms and sick horses, and he was able to conquer the largest empire in the western hemisphere for Spain which was no where near ready to bring their might to bare. And he did it through a translator. I think Cortes can stand his own

@Putin33 - I definitely agree with you on Bismark and Richelieu. Not so much Metternich or Palmerston. Metternich was a great diplomat and skilled at negotiating to create a consensus, but as far as the game of intrigue I think he isn't quite at the level of Bismark or Richelieu. Palmerston as well, he was very much a skilled, professional diplomat, but his power came largely from the fact that he happened to lead British foreign policy when Britain was at the height of its imperial power. He was not necessarily responsible for the rise of Britain and his policies were not, in my opinion, all beneficial.

@SantaClausowitz - True, but there were other factors involved: the most commonly mentioned ones would be disease and the fact that his Conquistadors were greeted by the Aztecs as gods. Being considered a god by the people you wish to conquer is quite an advantage....... Can you imagine the sort of fear which must have greeted the appearance of horses and firearms in central America if they were thought to be brought by the gods(even if they were sick or not completely functioning)? Cortez didn't need to conquer the Aztecs; he just needed to make them believe they were conquered. As I understand it that was the main reason for his success, not really his ability to gain the trust of some smaller tribes who opposed the Aztecs.

"Cortez didn't need to conquer the Aztecs; he just needed to make them believe they were conquered"

Sounds like a damn good diplomacy player to me.

and btw, just for kicks, check out what happened to Cook in Hawaii when they thought he was god, great story.

Yet the Aztecs drove Cortez out of Tenochtitlan and ousted Montezuma once they knew what he was up to. The god-myth, which has been rejected by most mesoamerican scholars, had nothing to do with Cortez's final victory over the Aztecs.

Hitler was lucky in that he stepped out of nothing into a leadership vacuum, and the "arduous" task of wranglin diplomatically with a war weary Britain and France.
His "Stab" of Russia while Britain was still in the war contributed to his downfall.

Not near the top of my list.

Frederick II would be near the top as would Richelieu and Bismark.

What about Kublai Khan and his Yuan Dynasty?

Charles the Great? (Charlemagne)

"and cortes did most of it himself, unless i am mistaken he had very little assistance from spain"

Not only did he have no assistance from Spain, his foray into Mexico was in direct contravention of his orders from the governor of Cuba. Said governor actually sent a force to capture Cortes in Mexico and take him back to Cuba in chains... a force which Cortes convinced to abandon that mission and join him.

My vote goes to Cortes as well, with Augustus Caesar a close second.

Surprised no one has mentioned Alexander the Great. Calmed Macedonians who didn't know if he would be as strong a leader as his father, conquered Greeks who rose up against him, dove into the Persian Empire which was far larger than his own and had many more soldiers per battle. First known Westerner (I believe) to reach India. Would have been very interesting had he reached China.

As long as we're talking about Greeks, I would also mention Phillip, Alexander's father. Though I obviously give Alexander a higher grade considering his achievements, Phillip did what both Greeks and Persians* were unable to... he united the Greeks, all be it, by conquering them...

*Okay, so the Persians did unite the Greeks against them, but that is hardly what they intended

Genghis Khan unified the Mongols, invading the world power, invaded the second world power and created the largest empire of all time.

Best conqueror is not the same as best diplomat. Alexander's Empire fragmented completely after his death, so he didn't consolidate his victories - frankly because he was so young when he died.

On Metternich - the liberal revolutions would have taken place much earlier had it not been for Metternich. The post-Napoleonic order was completely his design, and the Concert of Europe that he created permanently shaped how international affairs would be conducted. Indeed, the breakdown of the Metternich order is as responsible for the great wars of the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th as anything else.

Think about it, the French Revolution presented a powerful existential threat to everything that had existed in Europe since Westphalia. Somehow, some way, this revolutionary upheaval was largely contained (at least on the continent, it destroyed the Spanish Empire) and the old monarchies persisted, and even in the French case the Bourbons were restored to power.

As for Palmerston, which decisions do you think were harmful? I don't necessarily disagree, but I think he presided over Britain in a time of great uncertainty and upheaval in Europe. His decision to prop up the decadent and dying Ottoman Empire through the 1800s did much to prevent Russian and French expansion and preserve the Balance of Power (and by "balance" I mean British dominance). It might be said that had the Russians been able to take care of the Turks much earlier and controlled the Bosporus, the Tsarist system might have survived.