View Full Version : Your favourite historical personality
Dodge_272
01-18-2009, 12:12
Who's your favourite person, from throughout the history of the world, and why? :book:
Zhuge Liang (http://kongming.net/novel/sgz/zhugeliang.php). The only one who reaches near him is Alexander, and all others below them are very far away. While Alexander was an incredibly successful general, I find Zhuge Liang incredibly more complete. He dominated the Art of War, crushed his enemies numerous times against the odds, was a through diplomat, an inventor, a philosopher, an orator. A master of warfare, politics and astrology. He was brilliant in every way. Noone can match him, noone can reach him.
Strike For The South
01-18-2009, 19:18
Andrew Jackson. The epitome of America
Hannibal Barca. He may not have been up there with Alexander for Grand Strategy but in my humble opinion the best tactical general that has ever lived. Unfortunately, Hannibal the man is somewhat of a mystery as the only information we have of him comes from his enemies, the Romans.
Quintus.JC
01-18-2009, 22:55
Zhuge Liang (http://kongming.net/novel/sgz/zhugeliang.php). The only one who reaches near him is Alexander, and all others below them are very far away. While Alexander was an incredibly successful general, I find Zhuge Liang incredibly more complete. He dominated the Art of War, crushed his enemies numerous times against the odds, was a through diplomat, an inventor, a philosopher, an orator. A master of warfare, politics and astrology. He was brilliant in every way. Noone can match him, noone can reach him.
Zhuge Liang's abilities was highly exaggerated in the novel, but everything you said about him was true to some extend, the guy was quite a poet as well. I would like to nominate Kangxi Emperor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangxi_Emperor) of China, possibly one of the greatest ruler the world has known.
Zhuge Liang's abilities was highly exaggerated in the novel, but everything you said about him was true to some extend, the guy was quite a poet as well. I would like to nominate Kangxi Emperor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangxi_Emperor) of China, possibly one of the greatest ruler the world has known.
I base myself on not solely on the Romance. Thus why I linked to his "historical" biography, not the Romance one. I also read his Art of War, which in my opinion, is quite superior to that of Sun Tzu.
I certainly, do not believe he called the South-East winds. >_>
That was just a lucky Zhou Yu, knowing a fisherman who was his friend and the fisherman told him the South-East winds would arrive in a number of days.
Julius Caesar. The man was a living god.
CountArach
01-19-2009, 11:59
Emperor Napoleon I. Few other people have had an entire period of human history named after them.
Meneldil
01-19-2009, 14:20
Ceasar and Napoleon, only for the fact that they ended democracy to supposedly protect it.
Add to that the fact they were good generals, orators and politicians, as well as overly megalomaniacs, and here you are, you have the most interesting historical figures ever.
Conradus
01-19-2009, 14:33
Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon.
Fisherking
01-19-2009, 15:40
Andrew Jackson. The epitome of America
Let’s debate this one. I know he is your choice and you are welcome to it, but Old Hickory was not exactly a role model for American Youth!
He was vengeful, conniving, underhanded, & brutal! And those could be said to be his good points.
His political excesses were legendary. It was by his urging that the Indian Removal Act was passed and the few good things we think of him doing were all out of selfish motivation…
Are you sure you don’t like Thomas (Stonewall) Jackson just a bit more?
Uesugi Kenshin
01-19-2009, 16:23
Let’s debate this one. I know he is your choice and you are welcome to it, but Old Hickory was not exactly a role model for American Youth!
He was vengeful, conniving, underhanded, & brutal! And those could be said to be his good points.
His political excesses were legendary. It was by his urging that the Indian Removal Act was passed and the few good things we think of him doing were all out of selfish motivation…
Are you sure you don’t like Thomas (Stonewall) Jackson just a bit more?
Or Teddy, I mean the man gave a speech after getting shot without any medical attention!
Course Jackson did wait for a man to shoot at a duel, get shot, and then shoot the man dead though his gun malfunctioned on his first pull of the trigger and he had to squeeze it again...
Quintus.JC
01-19-2009, 17:00
I base myself on not solely on the Romance. Thus why I linked to his "historical" biography, not the Romance one. I also read his Art of War, which in my opinion, is quite superior to that of Sun Tzu.
I certainly, do not believe he called the South-East winds. >_>
That was just a lucky Zhou Yu, knowing a fisherman who was his friend and the fisherman told him the South-East winds would arrive in a number of days.
I don't even know how he got the winds, wasn't he supposed to be really good at astrology and deduced that the wind was going to come, like a human weather machine or something like that? Or was it really the fisherman.
It was really a fisherman. He told Zhou Yu that there would be the South-Eastern winds at a certain day. Zhuge Liang, had nothing to do with the event. Same goes for the recieving arrows incident. That was Sun Quan's orders to attack during the fog.
Conqueror
01-19-2009, 17:46
Socrates.
Fisherking
01-19-2009, 18:32
Or Teddy, I mean the man gave a speech after getting shot without any medical attention!
Course Jackson did wait for a man to shoot at a duel, get shot, and then shoot the man dead though his gun malfunctioned on his first pull of the trigger and he had to squeeze it again...
I only thought that perhaps Lone Stare or Perl had confused him into thinking Andy was Tom…
Strike may not find Teddy as appealing but instead of Andy Jackson I could offer up another Tennessean, ol’ Sam Huston might not be as bad a choice, though the both of them likely owe more to Tennessee Whisky than Tennessee Breeding.
Quintus.JC
01-19-2009, 20:54
It was really a fisherman. He told Zhou Yu that there would be the South-Eastern winds at a certain day. Zhuge Liang, had nothing to do with the event. Same goes for the recieving arrows incident. That was Sun Quan's orders to attack during the fog.
Zhuge Liang just became less god-like then he had been. :no:
seireikhaan
01-19-2009, 22:07
Chinggis Kha(a)n.
EDIT: close second is Siddharta Gautama
Zhuge Liang just became less god-like then he had been. :no:
To be fair, unless he was an metereologist, he would hardly know how fogs and winds appeared and vanished. The fisherman must of had a life long experience for him to know the wind patterns of the river, still that doesn't deny the fact that he was the best strategist ever.
Likewise, Liu Bei is depicted in the Romance as the most virtuous and kind of all people, though in reality he was much more 'grey'. For instance, it was Liu Bei himself who ordered the beating of Cao Xing which led to the attack of Lu Bu. The Romance also has Liu Bei look like a weak or mediocre general, while in reality he was far more able in commanding armies than in the Romance.
Strike For The South
01-19-2009, 23:53
Let’s debate this one. I know he is your choice and you are welcome to it, but Old Hickory was not exactly a role model for American Youth!
He was vengeful, conniving, underhanded, & brutal! And those could be said to be his good points.
His political excesses were legendary. It was by his urging that the Indian Removal Act was passed and the few good things we think of him doing were all out of selfish motivation…
Are you sure you don’t like Thomas (Stonewall) Jackson just a bit more?
I mean Andrew Jackson. The man ushered in universal suffrage he was the first "president of the people" He was an arrogant person but such was the nature of early presidents. Adams Jefferson and Adams Jr. were all more wrapped up in themselves more so than Jackson.
He fought his whole life for the ideal of an America were everyone had a voice. I also like a man who walked the walk as it were he wasn't afirad to back down from a fight and all good leaders need to be able to stand there ground. He also was very principled, stuck to his guns I can respect that.
He also was a loving caring gentleman who adopted an Indian boy. The man came from nothing into everything due to his sheer will.
My heros in American history are not guys like Washington or Hamilton or even FDR. I like guys like Jackson or Patton. Men who instead of finding ways around the wall in front of them went right through it.
Stonewall was a very good general (maybe better than Lee) but not much more.
Andrew Jackson. The epitome of America
All I think of that man when I hear the name is the Indian Removal act (Not that I dont know his other history, not in-depth though). Forcing native americans to go from their ancestral homelands to Oklahoma. All the while doing it in nazi fashion, being overly cruel on the long march there.
Oklahoma, you ever been there? I grew up there. Not a fun place to be.
Strike For The South
01-20-2009, 00:04
All I think of that man when I hear the name is the Indian Removal act (Not that I dont know his other history, not in-depth though). Forcing native americans to go from their ancestral homelands to Oklahoma. All the while doing it in nazi fashion, being overly cruel on the long march there.
Oklahoma, you ever been there? I grew up there. Not a fun place to be.
I never said the man was perfect but what he did for voters and the democratic process outweighs what he did to the Indians.
I have never been to Oklahoma but with good reason, I'm from Texas.
Sarmatian
01-20-2009, 01:51
Is that the same guy that used to be a general and commanded American army at New Orleans in the war with UK?
Lord Winter
01-20-2009, 02:19
I never said the man was perfect but what he did for voters and the democratic process outweighs what he did to the Indians.
I have never been to Oklahoma but with good reason, I'm from Texas.
You mean like ignoring the supreme court, his handling of the nulification crisis and the spoils system?
Strike For The South
01-20-2009, 02:45
You mean like ignoring the supreme court, his handling of the nulification crisis and the spoils system?
The spoils system is a pretty weak argument. Every president does that.
What did he do about nullification. I know he didn't agree with SC what did he do wrong?
Lord Winter
01-20-2009, 03:02
True, but he was the start of it on a larger and offical scale.
As for nullification, he threatened to use force, and alienated the South, starting (among other factors) the build up to the civil war.
Strike For The South
01-20-2009, 03:06
True, but he was the start of it on a larger and offical scale.
As for nullification, he threatened to use force, and alienated the South, starting (among other factors) the build up to the civil war.
Debatable considering perviously the same guys were running the show.
If we had a weak willed president the country could have very well split in two right then. While I am a proponent of states rights. A divided union would've probably stayed that way.
Ramses II CP
01-20-2009, 04:57
My namesake, of course, Ramses II of Egypt. One of the longest reigning king/emperors in history. Personally led troops to victory in battle. Signed the first peace treaty in recorded history. Fathered about one hundred legitimate heirs. Survived to age 90 in an era when 35 was the typical lifespan. Effectively declared himself a god while still living, and was believed in so firmly that by some accounts his subjects were convinced the world would end when he died.
His success was so great that those who followed him tore down his monuments and tried to erase his memory because they could not match his accomplishments. Failing that, they took his name and claimed his deeds for their own. That despite this his name and some small part of his great works still echo down through more than three thousand years of human civilization bears witness to his might.
Look on his works, ye mighty, and despair. (With apologies to Shelley :laugh4:)
:egypt:
a completely inoffensive name
01-20-2009, 05:08
The spoils system is a pretty weak argument. Every president does that.
I agree with Strike that Andrew Jackson was awesome, but I have to note that the spoils system was removed after Garfield's assassination.
Strike For The South
01-20-2009, 05:22
I agree with Strike that Andrew Jackson was awesome, but I have to note that the spoils system was removed after Garfield's assassination.
There are ways around those pesky laws. We see it today. It's just not as pronounced.
a completely inoffensive name
01-20-2009, 07:30
There are ways around those pesky laws. We see it today. It's just not as pronounced.
Not really, the spoils system was candidates giving cushy jobs to people in return for support and their votes, nowadays support is given by companies who want favorable legislation for their business. Are there jobs given to friends and not necessarily the most qualified person, probably, but it is most likely not on the scale that it still qualifies to be considered a continuation of the spoils system.
Fisherking
01-20-2009, 08:28
I mean Andrew Jackson. The man ushered in universal suffrage he was the first "president of the people" He was an arrogant person but such was the nature of early presidents. Adams Jefferson and Adams Jr. were all more wrapped up in themselves more so than Jackson.
He fought his whole life for the ideal of an America were everyone had a voice. I also like a man who walked the walk as it were he wasn't afirad to back down from a fight and all good leaders need to be able to stand there ground. He also was very principled, stuck to his guns I can respect that.
He also was a loving caring gentleman who adopted an Indian boy. The man came from nothing into everything due to his sheer will.
My heros in American history are not guys like Washington or Hamilton or even FDR. I like guys like Jackson or Patton. Men who instead of finding ways around the wall in front of them went right through it.
Stonewall was a very good general (maybe better than Lee) but not much more.
If your reasons are good enough for you, then they are good enough for me.
When we speak of Humans, we all have flaws and some just need to be overlooked at times.
Informed choice was all I was after.
Quintus.JC
01-20-2009, 19:04
To be fair, unless he was an metereologist, he would hardly know how fogs and winds appeared and vanished. The fisherman must of had a life long experience for him to know the wind patterns of the river, still that doesn't deny the fact that he was the best strategist ever.
Likewise, Liu Bei is depicted in the Romance as the most virtuous and kind of all people, though in reality he was much more 'grey'. For instance, it was Liu Bei himself who ordered the beating of Cao Xing which led to the attack of Lu Bu. The Romance also has Liu Bei look like a weak or mediocre general, while in reality he was far more able in commanding armies than in the Romance.
Again some new unwelcoming fact, I always did knew Liu Bei was a greyed out character but still prefered to remember him as a true peoples' man, I still hopes that he does displayed some virtue in real life that correspond to the novel.
Still thanks for the facts. :bow:
Seamus Fermanagh
01-21-2009, 05:53
Is that the same guy that used to be a general and commanded American army at New Orleans in the war with UK?
Same fellow.
Though to be picky, Pakenham's defeat at New Orleans occurred after the official end of the war, but before either Jackson or Pakenham could be notified.
Megas Methuselah
01-21-2009, 07:55
Caesar and Napoleon. I will emulate their success in the near future.
Again some new unwelcoming fact, I always did knew Liu Bei was a greyed out character but still prefered to remember him as a true peoples' man, I still hopes that he does displayed some virtue in real life that correspond to the novel.
Still thanks for the facts. :bow:
He wasn't as famous as the Romance makes out of him, for instance:
- There was no beatiful Peach Garden Oath. They just swore brotherhood normally.
- He played a very minor role in the Yellow Turban rebellion. Hardly could he have saved an Imperial Governor such as Dong Zhuo.
- It wasn't Zhang Fei who whiped the Imperial Emmissary asking for a bribe for the eunuchs. Liu Bei did it himself.
- Tao Qian (Xu Governor) didn't offer his land to Liu Bei. It was Mi Zhu who did it, along with Chen Deng and Kong Rong. He also never offered Xuzhou to Lu Bu.
- He never was acknowledged as the "Imperial Uncle", despite this nickname being widely used in the novel after the audience with Emperor Xian.
- Certainly did not rely on Xu Shu to defend Xinye from Cao Ren and Li Dian. He arranged and carried out the defense himself. (Which worked brilliantly, imo)
- It was after this time that Zhuge Liang was employed into Liu Bei's service, at Xu Shu's recomendation and while Xu Shu still served Liu Bei. The Three Visits did exist though.
- Also defeated Xiahou Dun at Xin Ye, not Zhuge Liang nor Xu Shu (Who had already left Liu Bei, anyhow).
- Had than three sons and some daughters (Which were, unfortunately, captured by Cao Chun at Changban Slope)
- Zhou Yu's attempted assassination at Chi Bi battle was non existent. Although Sun Quan was advised by Zhou Yu and Han Ze to keep Liu Bei hostage during his visit to Wu, no such attempt was made, and Liu Bei left without incident.
- Huang Zhong was not chief commander of Shu’s Hanzhong campaign. Liu Bei was (Once again, brilliantly conducted).
- Commanded between 40–80,000 troops at Yiling; far fewer than the 700,000 or so mentioned in the novel. Wu on the other hand had several hundred thousands. It is magnificent to see Liu Bei, already an Emperor and unused to commanding armies, beat Wu's armies repeatedly and force them on the defensive with a gigantic inferior army ratio.
All in all, Liu Bei was really an ordinary warlord. Still he is my favourite character of the Romance, with Zhuge Liang behind him as a close second. Guan Yu is too incredibly over-rated. He might be by far the most overrated character of the entire novel:
- Didn't kill Hua Xiong (Dong Zhuo's uber-like general), Sun Jian's troops did that themselves.
- Did not give specifics terms of surrender to Cao Cao (Shocking isn't it? Cao Cao had just probably murdered his own sworn brothers, and he joined unregretably. No more noble conduct)
- Never killed Wen Chou (Yuan Shao's uber-like general), who actually died in battle with Cao Cao after falling for a plot.
- Guan Yu did not ‘traverse five passes’ and ‘slay five generals’. Cao Cao admired his honor and sense of duty, and allowed him to leave. In majority, the characters that appeared in this novel event were fictional.
- After Cao Cao was throughly defeated in Chibi, Guan Yu did not meet with and spare Cao Cao at Huarong (Again, no more honourable conduct).
- Did not ‘fight with and release’ Huang Zhong. Han Xuan and Huang Zhong surrendered of their own accord.
-Did not plan to duel Ma Chao when he was promoted. Simply sent a letter asking how they compared (No honourable pride and sense of demonstrating he was uber-leet, since he wasn't and would probably have been pwned by Ma Chao should any such event had happened; Zhang Fei didn't duel Ma Chao either).
- In the novel Lü Meng feigned illness to trick Guan Yu. Historically, Lü Meng was truly ill (Poor Guan Yu, tricked by a non-existent trick. >_>)
- The flooding of Fan Castle was not Guan Yu’s stratagem. It was a natural occurrence (Guan Yu had no clue it was going to happen).
- Guan Yu was executed without Sun Quan's knowledge or consentment (The poor guy :P)
Many more nifty things haven't happened in real history. :P
Guan Yu is too incredibly over-rated. He might be by far the most overrated character of the entire novel:
While I do agree that he is overrated novelwise, Guan Yu's martial prowess was outstanding. Slew Yan Liang, defeated Pang De and Yu Jin, as well as his very helpful service at Chang Ban. Also, don't forget that Chen Shou didn't make the best Shu biographies, after all, he was serving the Jin. He had to make the biographies short and discreet, one wrong word and he could have been undone, my point is that Guan Yu is in fact underrated, historically and not novelwise. Although he was arrogant and blinded by his pride, he was a far better warrior than he was as a general. In addition, He was one of the most feared warriors of his time, both Cao Cao's, Sun Quan's and Lu Meng's Sanguozi biographies lay claim to this. I think there are two possible explanations for this, and that is either Chen Shou did not record everything Guan Yu did, or Guan Yu really was an overrated, arrogant bastard. We never know.
Anyway, my favorite historical figures would be Khalid ibn Al Walid and Napoleon Bonaparte.
General Lettow-Vorbeck
-Mostly due to his solid (guerilla) campaign against the English and actually winning, even though the odds were not in his favor.
General Sherman
- Due to his total war ideas
Saladin
Sun Tzu
Cambyses
01-25-2009, 07:47
Favourite personality, as in most interesting that defined an era, probably Alexander the Great - there was a lot more to him than simply being a great general. I mean how many people could claim to be personally educated by Aristotle?
Jan Karol Chodkiewicz - polish hetman (highest military rank) - for way he defeated Poland into XVII century and Casimir the Great - polish king who changed our country for centuries.
Maybe its a bit nationalistic but I like them. Their influence was visible for many years - into whole Eastern Europe.
Passatempo
01-25-2009, 21:12
Julius Caesar
Quintus.JC
01-25-2009, 22:54
He wasn't as famous as the Romance makes out of him, for instance.....
Seems that we both share a fascination with the Romance of the three kingdoms. Guan Yu was massively overrated, the fact that he is worshiped as a deity in China in these days just shows it entirely. I myself is a big fan of Cao Cao, reading the novel would get you an antaganising opionion about him, but the real Cao Cao was much different.
Seamus Fermanagh
01-26-2009, 06:48
Ben Franklin
Strike For The South
01-26-2009, 06:53
Ben Franklin
To French.
Seems that we both share a fascination with the Romance of the three kingdoms. Guan Yu was massively overrated, the fact that he is worshiped as a deity in China in these days just shows it entirely. I myself is a big fan of Cao Cao, reading the novel would get you an antaganising opionion about him, but the real Cao Cao was much different.
Just because he is overrated, doesn't mean his achievements should be overlooked. It is also a common misconception that Guan Yu is worshiped as a deity by anyone outside the Sanguo era, Kwan Gong however, is still a deity and referred to as the "God of War". And Cao Cao is also my favorite, I'm a Wei-ist when it comes to the Three Kingdoms. But didn't Cao Cao execute one of his men in Guan Du just to strike fear into his troops?
Just because he is overrated, doesn't mean his achievements should be overlooked. It is also a common misconception that Guan Yu is worshiped as a deity by anyone outside the Sanguo era, Kwan Gong however, is still a deity and referred to as the "God of War". And Cao Cao is also my favorite, I'm a Wei-ist when it comes to the Three Kingdoms. But didn't Cao Cao execute one of his men in Guan Du just to strike fear into his troops?
Not at Guan Du. If I'm not mistaken it was either when he was fighting Yuan Shu or Lu Bu. My bet'd go to the former. You mean when his troops were out of supplies, and he "borrowed his head", as an excuse that supplies had dwindled due to the executed man's fault.
I find Cao Cao in the novel to be a dumbass many times. Especially with those lines where one of his advisors'd go like: "What is your plan, my Lord?", and Cao Cao'd go: "No, what is your plan?" then the advisor would reply coming up with some clever scheme and Cao Cao'd say "It's exactly what I thought!" >_> Anyway I already played the Three Kingdoms game (http://threekingdoms.com/tk_map.aspx) many years ago (Like, 8 years ago), making me a grizzled veteran, only known by the hardcore veterans of that game. Later, I wondered around the RTK Sims such as this one (http://www.simrtk.net/), but it is in the process of beginning a new game. I've been around the 3 Kingdom era for a great while.
Of course, as I well said, my favorite person is Zhuge Liang, by far and wide.
I have witnessed many arguments over Guan Yu's achievements or not, and I've gradually despised him.
Anyway, here is a nice glimpse of what I think about him:
Whilst it was my intention to bow out of statting for the time being, I shall have to comment here. How in the world do you believe Guan Yu deserves those increases in statistics, especially politics? Guan Yu was defeated far more often then twice, in actuality his only major victory was against Yu Jin. Yu did not hold off Xu Huang, the latter came to reinforce Cao Ren was decimated Guan Yu with a peasant militia despite Yu having an elite Shu army under his command. Huang was a superior commander by far however only a fool would lose when all the odds happened to fall at his footsteps.
Elsewhere although the novel attempts to redeem Guan Yu's reputation at Xuzhou, he was defeated by overwhelming odds against Cao Cao and historically surrendered with little hesitation and no three conditions. Furthermore prior to this I recall him having lost to Zhang Liao. Lest we have neglected his arrogance nearly allowing Huang Zhong to slay him dead and not to mention Zhong's ability to hold him back
Beyond the aforementioned victory over Yu Jin, Guan Yu had no actualy victories that I ca recall where someone else did not play an immense role in securing said victory; even when against Pang De, Guan Yu's foolishness nearly saw his demise had Guan Ping not dashed forward to interfere. Definitely keep his lead in the seventies, he was an above average commander at best.
Guan Yu was an absolute disaster as a Governor and often credited for what led to the strife and inevitable showdown between the Kingdoms of Wu and Shu. Initially his role in Xuzhou was exceptionally limited as Liu Beu lost territory about as often as it rains in Vancouver; moreover Bei's friendship and lack of capable officers would also attest to Yu's appointment. Afterwards in Jingzhou, it was Zhuge Liang who held office until the acquisition of Yizhou, although I believe Liang may have left immediately after the death of Pang Tong.
Nevertheless practically everything besides his attack on Fan Castle was as I mentioned earlier, a disaster. In the novel he refused to give Sun Quan territory that had been already agreed upon by Liu and Sun and stubbornly remained so, even threatening Lu Su with execution if he not leave; all until Zhuge returned to Jingzhou to force his hand. In history Lu Su merely defeated an unsuspecting Guan Yu although not directly. Continuing along these lines Guan Yu openly insulted not only the Wu Kingdom, yet their liege, Sun Quan as well; to the point he refused a political marriage - which would have strengthened the alliance and redeemed his previous indiscretions - by once more insulting Quan and his son. His arrogance turned violent when he raided the supplies of the Wu encampment to aid his own food supply.
All in all Guan Y u gave Wu every excuse in existence to declare Wu, whether or not it was the correct course of action. I might as well deal with his Intelligence here as well, Yu had a single ploy become successful and it was novel only I believe, not to mention LGZ steals away some of Yu's credit when he makes various notions of Yu Jin's own idiocy to follow sound advice and to thwart his own officer's (Pang De) near guaranteed victory due to an insecurity regarding reward. This all thoroughly works against Guan Yu's intelligence and again in the novel Yu is humiliated in a debate - despite receiving a poem of valor - by Lu Su. Of course I close this portion of his statistics by mentioning Lu Xun and Lu Meng playing him like a complete fool by pattering his arrogance, which subsequently led to his demise.
Guan Yu was a respected opponent however few outside of Shu and even those within actually held him in high accord on a personal level. He was arrogant and often made certain those beneath him understood he was their superior. I cite the example of his complaints when Ma Chao and Huang Zhong were granted the title of Tiger Generals. He was only appeased when Zhuge Liang made it clear he was to be seen as their superiors.
few outside of Shu and even those within actually held him in high accord on a personal level.
He was one of the most feared warriors of his time, both Cao Cao's, Sun Quan's and Lu Meng's Sanguozi biographies lay claim to this.
His administrative, political, and leadership skills weren't that great, but he was a respected warrior at the time, and he probably killed more than the SGZ credits him for.
I find Cao Cao in the novel to be a dumbass many times. Especially with those lines where one of his advisors'd go like: "What is your plan, my Lord?", and Cao Cao'd go: "No, what is your plan?" then the advisor would reply coming up with some clever scheme and Cao Cao'd say "It's exactly what I thought!" >_> Anyway I already played the Three Kingdoms game many years ago (Like, 8 years ago), making me a grizzled veteran, only known by the hardcore veterans of that game. Later, I wondered around the RTK Sims such as this one, but it is in the process of beginning a new game. I've been around the 3 Kingdom era for a great while.
I didn't bother finishing the first volume of the novel, I didn't enjoy it at all, especially after finding out about its historical inaccuracies.
Of course, as I well said, my favorite person is Zhuge Liang, by far and wide.
Agreed, compared to the other strategists of the time. It's a shame his successor was not as talented...
Seamus Fermanagh
01-27-2009, 05:35
To French.
Not at all. Jefferson was too frenchified. Franklin merely enjoyed the .... er.... companionship of a number of frenchwomen....had to keep up his....esprit de corps. :wiseguy:
Veho Nex
01-27-2009, 06:21
Custer, the guy was funny, and he was a good leader(though a little arrogant at somepoints *cough* battle of little *cough* bighorn*cough*)
His administrative, political, and leadership skills weren't that great, but he was a respected warrior at the time, and he probably killed more than the SGZ credits him for.
I didn't bother finishing the first volume of the novel, I didn't enjoy it at all, especially after finding out about its historical inaccuracies.
Agreed, compared to the other strategists of the time. It's a shame his successor was not as talented...
I believe Jiang Wei was a great strategist of his own time as well.
Heck, the administration Kongming left to Liu Shan was comprised of great men (Jiang Wan, Jiang Wei, Fei Yi, Dong Yun, etc). Only when these started dieing, and incompetent men took their place, the corruption in Shu (Which was already high by the time of the Northern Expeditions) rose gigantically. But Shu never had a chance against Wei, even with Zhuge Liang. I believe the defining moment was the death of Pang Tong. If Pang Tong hadn't died, I'd reckon things would have turned out differently. If Zhuge Liang attacked from Jing (Which is hard to believe that Zhuge Liang would lose to Wu) and Pang Tong from Yi, and Sun Quan sent his men through Hefei, something of notice could be achieved. Whereas isolated attacks by Zhuge Liang, through difficult terrain, against an Empire far more populous and productive than Shu, was doomed from the start. Only Zhuge's remarkable talent managed to put Wei on the defensive.
Vladimir Lenin, he made the U.S.S.R and Soviet Communism.
The New Che Guevara
01-29-2009, 00:31
Vladimir Lenin, he made the U.S.S.R and Soviet Communism.
well... there's more to it than that... but I'd agree. It's more soviet socialism but none the less...
Ernesto "Che" Guevara.
the name kinda gives it away... just realised...:sweatdrop:
The man was amazing... did more to help the peoples of the world, after cuba, went to the Congo to inspire revolution with the guerilla troops there, after that failed... he hid in europe. Then came back to Cuba and then to Bolivia where the capitalist dogs made a mockery of his death.
But others might disagree, there are clips of Che helping out in factories, and he was a general (sort of). He shot himself in the foot literally (at the bay of pigs invasion), dedicated himself to the cause. Disliked the soviet attitude especially to the Cuban Missile Crisis (ah Khrushchev...). Ironically through his death, he has become an icon for the revolution... which people sadly use without knowing his full story. He was an excellent orator, cared for the people, he was a doctor and had a huge library behind him from Marx to Cervantes...
Overall, a modern day hero and a symbol that the cause of communism will never die. :charge:
PanzerJaeger
01-29-2009, 00:57
well... there's more to it than that... but I'd agree. It's more soviet socialism but none the less...
Ernesto "Che" Guevara.
the name kinda gives it away... just realised...:sweatdrop:
The man was amazing... did more to help the peoples of the world, after cuba, went to the Congo to inspire revolution with the guerilla troops there, after that failed... he hid in europe. Then came back to Cuba and then to Bolivia where the capitalist dogs made a mockery of his death.
But others might disagree, there are clips of Che helping out in factories, and he was a general (sort of). He shot himself in the foot literally (at the bay of pigs invasion), dedicated himself to the cause. Disliked the soviet attitude especially to the Cuban Missile Crisis (ah Khrushchev...). Ironically through his death, he has become an icon for the revolution... which people sadly use without knowing his full story. He was an excellent orator, cared for the people, he was a doctor and had a huge library behind him from Marx to Cervantes...
Overall, a modern day hero and a symbol that the cause of communism will never die. :charge:
And he also loooooved ripping people's fingernails out! Great guy he was... :yes:
Strike For The South
01-29-2009, 03:31
And he also loooooved ripping people's fingernails out! Great guy he was... :yes:
Don't forget the mass killing of political dissidents and blacks. What a great guy!
Evil_Maniac From Mars
01-29-2009, 03:52
Don't forget the mass killing of political dissidents and blacks. What a great guy!
Or overcrowding political prisoners into spaces meant for less than half of their number! Or getting personal pleasure from ordering or carrying out executions!
The list goes on. And lenin96, we can do precisely the same thing for your choice.
Disliked the soviet attitude especially to the Cuban Missile Crisis
Yes, he never quite thought the Soviets were radical enough...
I believe Jiang Wei was a great strategist of his own time as well.
Heck, the administration Kongming left to Liu Shan was comprised of great men (Jiang Wan, Jiang Wei, Fei Yi, Dong Yun, etc). Only when these started dieing, and incompetent men took their place, the corruption in Shu (Which was already high by the time of the Northern Expeditions) rose gigantically. But Shu never had a chance against Wei, even with Zhuge Liang. I believe the defining moment was the death of Pang Tong. If Pang Tong hadn't died, I'd reckon things would have turned out differently. If Zhuge Liang attacked from Jing (Which is hard to believe that Zhuge Liang would lose to Wu) and Pang Tong from Yi, and Sun Quan sent his men through Hefei, something of notice could be achieved. Whereas isolated attacks by Zhuge Liang, through difficult terrain, against an Empire far more populous and productive than Shu, was doomed from the start. Only Zhuge's remarkable talent managed to put Wei on the defensive.
Zhuge Liang did not entrust Jiang Wei with anything, at least not as much as the others you mentioned. He was so obsessed with something he couldn't achieve. Jiang Wei became obsessed with the attack, perhaps for fame as the popular theory proclaims or another reason, he exhausted the state, drove the people to revolt and failed his duty to the court and his officers by failing to throw weight behind Zhang Yi and Qiao Zhou. The death of Pang Tong was a great loss, but the fate of Shu was not entirely at his hands, recall Shu's incompetent officers and unnecessary invasions which cost them dearly.
LittleGrizzly
01-29-2009, 19:28
Well that was odd, several conquerer, facists and all round killers are named without objection (cept STFS's one) the second a communist is named several posters question the choice... if i didn't know better i may suggest some kind of bias is present...
PanzerJaeger
01-29-2009, 20:53
Well that was odd, several conquerer, facists and all round killers are named without objection (cept STFS's one) the second a communist is named several posters question the choice... if i didn't know better i may suggest some kind of bias is present...
I think it was more the rationale for his choice, not the choice itself.
For example, I've recently been doing as much reading as I can on Walter Model - German general, committed Nazi, and an all around bastard to everyone around him.
His martial skills and devotion to the causes he believed in fascinates me, but I would never portray him as a "hero to the people" or an "amazing man". ~:rolleyes:
Che had some interesting, and even admirable qualities about him, but our own Che’s description was a total whitewashing.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
01-29-2009, 22:09
Well that was odd, several conquerer, facists and all round killers are named without objection (cept STFS's one) the second a communist is named several posters question the choice... if i didn't know better i may suggest some kind of bias is present...
I'm sorry, where are the fascists?
Or overcrowding political prisoners into spaces meant for less than half of their number! Or getting personal pleasure from ordering or carrying out executions!
The list goes on. And lenin96, we can do precisely the same thing for your choice.
Yes, he never quite thought the Soviets were radical enough...
Most of the time it doesn't matter what someone does but why someone does something, you could say killing is always bad, no, the Tzar died and there wasn't much wrong with that, because all of that reasonless opression something had to be done about it. Now in Soviet times you could say people were opressed, if they were it didn't matter because they were helping Socialism, it doesn't really matter what you do to help Socialism, what matters is its effectiveness.
Most of the time it doesn't matter what someone does but why someone does something, you could say killing is always bad, no, the Tzar died and there wasn't much wrong with that, because all of that reasonless opression something had to be done about it. Now in Soviet times you could say people were opressed, if they were it didn't matter because they were helping Socialism, it doesn't really matter what you do to help Socialism, what matters is its effectiveness.
It doesn't matter? So I suppose Communists don't care about how their own people (Which they supposedly represent) live? The Soviets did create the best political heirarchy ever, in theory. Pity is that they deturped the idea from the beginning. I certainly wouldn't mind having the Soviet system in Portugal. It is by far and wide the best model of a workable Direct Economy for a Normal State (Contrary to City-State)
EDIT: Something like this: http://grazian-archive.com/politics/PolBehavior/Fig_10.gif
You can go from a mere village to the Parlament if you're good enough.
I suppose what I said about it mattering about oppression is wrong, but the point is that it doesn't always matter what the people think, do things for thier own good, the loyal servant learns to obey and apreciate things that they wouldn't want but need in order for the state to become strong, as long as people are equal in wealth.
What you say is in theory, right to an extent. Right in the way that the "psychology of the masses" (I have learned this from a man who knows Marxism and Comunism ideology more thoroughly than most modern communist wannabes, even though he isn't a communist himself.), are conservative at heart, since they always despise, reject and struggle against reforms. However, Soviet leaders clearly passed any line of "reasonability" in dealing with the masses, by imposing one of the most oppressive regimes ever. If the Tzar was branded as an "Oppressor of the Masses", for his 20 year rule, where Russia did experience, despite numerous setbacks and errors, a growth in GNP, pre-war entrance, and did indeed oppress the people, how much more did the communist leaders do, Lenin with his "War Communism", and Stalin with "Stalinism"? Lenin was heading the way of China is today because he saw Communism couldn't triumph in one country alone (And thus had to crush any opposition to establish his own original regime.). The only way for Communism to work would be for Capitalism to disapear altogether, which isn't happening. I would be a Communist as well if I thought that Communism was viable from a financial and welfare points of view for my people, but in good truth communism isn't. The problem is that Communist leaders enforced an ideology on a people which did not want it altogether and done it so through force, and that is wrong by definition.
I will except that some Soviet leaders didn't care much about the people, but Lenin did, collectivism for example is good, when it works bad it's devastating but when it goes good it's great.
I think it would be better to discuss historical people like we are now belongs in the backroom.
Meneldil
02-01-2009, 05:12
If the Tzar was branded as an "Oppressor of the Masses", for his 20 year rule, where Russia did experience, despite numerous setbacks and errors, a growth in GNP, pre-war entrance, and did indeed oppress the people, how much more did the communist leaders do, Lenin with his "War Communism", and Stalin with "Stalinism"?
Russia's GDP knew a much larger growth under Lenin and Stalin than under most of the Tzars' rule. USSR would never have become the 1st/2nd military power on earth otherwise.
Not to say that communism is awesome and what not, but on a purely economical and social basis, it wasn't worse than what have been done previously in Russia.
But yeah, overall, neither Stalin nor Che Guevara are worth being mentioned in this topic. I'm more relunctant about Lenin, because I think he really wanted to improve things and wasn't a complete power-hungry dictator. I completely understand the symbol represented by Che Guevara, but the man himself was an incompetent idiot.
Russia's GDP knew a much larger growth under Lenin and Stalin than under most of the Tzars' rule. USSR would never have become the 1st/2nd military power on earth otherwise.
Not to say that communism is awesome and what not, but on a purely economical and social basis, it wasn't worse than what have been done previously in Russia.
But yeah, overall, neither Stalin nor Che Guevara are worth being mentioned in this topic. I'm more relunctant about Lenin, because I think he really wanted to improve things and wasn't a complete power-hungry dictator. I completely understand the symbol represented by Che Guevara, but the man himself was an incompetent idiot.
Under Lenin? Under Lenin, Russia's GDP fell to its lowest ever. And indeed you are right. But forget not that you're comparing Communism to Tzarist Feudalism.
It is known that GDP growth under Stalin post-WW2 was made and sustained from an economic point of view, far beyond the sustainable growth percentage, which eventually over time led to great deficiencies and to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Don Esteban
02-05-2009, 17:32
Emperor Julian - i love the fact he tried to bring back Paganism even though he died in battle and failed.
King Jan III Sobieski
02-14-2009, 01:55
Shakespeare...he was so full of wit!
I'd have to say Khalid ibn al-waleed. need I say more?
Willem III, Stadtholder of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Gelderland, Overijsel and the generaliteit. King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland. Champion of Protestant europe and arch enemy of his most christian majesty Louis XIV.
scipiosgoblin
02-14-2009, 21:44
I have two. Both for the same reason.
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus
Lord Arthur Wellesley, The Duke of Wellington.
Both because they beat the "BEST" Generals of their time. Hannibal for Scipio and Napoleon for Wellington. Both are overshadowed and forgotten by the men they defeated.
The average person probably couldn't tell you who Hannibal was these days, but for those who can, the majority couldn't tell you who defeated him.
If you go to Waterloo, it looks like a shrine dedicated to Napoleon. Wellington is barely mentioned in any of the monuments or literature.
Conradus
02-14-2009, 22:16
I have two. Both for the same reason.
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus
Lord Arthur Wellesley, The Duke of Wellington.
Both because they beat the "BEST" Generals of their time. Hannibal for Scipio and Napoleon for Wellington. Both are overshadowed and forgotten by the men they defeated.
The average person probably couldn't tell you who Hannibal was these days, but for those who can, the majority couldn't tell you who defeated him.
If you go to Waterloo, it looks like a shrine dedicated to Napoleon. Wellington is barely mentioned in any of the monuments or literature.
Scipio might be less know, but surely Wellington is remembered? Especially the Brits'll know him, and even him a larger role than he actually deserves for Waterloo.
Beefy187
02-15-2009, 01:24
Pericles.
Fantastic politician. He perfectly knew the strength and weakness of democracy
a completely inoffensive name
02-15-2009, 06:48
Actually after thinking about it, I can't decide on my favorite personality between Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson. Each spoke brilliantly and passionately. Can't stop reading either.
Eisenhower. Great man. If not for his military accomplishments, but also his terms as President of the US. Plus his Military-Industrial Complex Speech (http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html).
My most favorite pal in history always was frederick II (stupor mundi). He was one of the smartest rulers in the middle ages, wrote books and tried to solve the problem between muslims and christianity by peacefull means. He was way ahead in time of his own people and thus failed.
This man was one of the few rational kings who tried to explain things by logic and research rather then solve the worlds riddles by pointing out to god.
Gaius Scribonius Curio
02-25-2009, 08:01
Can't believe that no-one has mentioned Gaius Julius Caesar (Divi Filius) Augustus.
It takes some doing to take an unstable democracy (if only nominally) and forge it into the instrument of one man. The fact that he did it without anyone noticing was a bonus....
Seriously the man was a political genius, and managed (with the help of Agrippa) to win several wars and defeat all comers over the course of about 15 years. At his death, the Principate was well underway and his chosen successor, Tiberius took over without a murmur (except for the suspected murder of his supposed co-heir... the less said about that the better...).
Strike For The South
02-25-2009, 08:06
Can I change my vote to Jesus?
Seign Thelas
02-25-2009, 13:01
Nobunaga Oda, one of the most innovative minds to come out of the 17th century.
If not him, Gilles de Rais, nothing beats being one of the most prolific serials killers of all time. Eighty to two hundred people, wow.
It takes some doing to take an unstable democracy (if only nominally) and forge it into the instrument of one man. The fact that he did it without anyone noticing was a bonus....
That's exactly why I'd never pick him as my favourite. And exactly why I picked Eisenhower, as he warned against such things happening in the US.
But, each to their own.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
02-27-2009, 04:55
I'd have to make a list of mine. It isn't in any particular order, mind you, in spite of it being numbered.
1) Otto von Bismarck. I don't always agree with his methods (or, more accurately, I don't like them being applied today to promote a United Europe - but different times must be judged differently), but he was an absolutely brilliant statesman, a true master of the art.
2) Helmuth von Moltke the Elder. The greatest military mind of his day, and certainly in the top ten of any list of European military leaders.
3) Hans Oster/Wilhelm Canaris. Enigmatic, beautiful minds, and true German heroes. The account of the interrogation of Canaris showed his outstanding mind - the amount of false trails, contradictory information, and traps he laid to confound the Nazis were marks of sheer genius.
4) Sir Isaac Brock. Not necessarily an exceptional military mind - he could be far too impetuous - he was nonetheless brave and a heroic figure in his own right.
5) Konrad Adenauer. He was, at least in part, responsible for Germany's return as a power. I am personally indebted to him for some of the things he did. The only problem I had with him was his committment to European unity.
6) Benjamin Disraeli. What a guy.
7) Golda Meir. A leader I very much look up to. Pity she was on the left.
PanzerJaeger
02-27-2009, 08:27
I'd have to make a list of mine. It isn't in any particular order, mind you, in spite of it being numbered.
1) Otto von Bismarck. I don't always agree with his methods (or, more accurately, I don't like them being applied today to promote a United Europe - but different times must be judged differently), but he was an absolutely brilliant statesman, a true master of the art.
2) Helmuth von Moltke the Elder. The greatest military mind of his day, and certainly in the top ten of any list of European military leaders.
3) Hans Oster/Wilhelm Canaris. Enigmatic, beautiful minds, and true German heroes. The account of the interrogation of Canaris showed his outstanding mind - the amount of false trails, contradictory information, and traps he laid to confound the Nazis were marks of sheer genius.
4) Sir Isaac Brock. Not necessarily an exceptional military mind - he could be far too impetuous - he was nonetheless brave and a heroic figure in his own right.
5) Konrad Adenauer. He was, at least in part, responsible for Germany's return as a power. I am personally indebted to him for some of the things he did. The only problem I had with him was his committment to European unity.
6) Benjamin Disraeli. What a guy.
7) Golda Meir. A leader I very much look up to. Pity she was on the left.
Very interesting list... :2thumbsup:
Strike For The South
02-27-2009, 08:51
I like EMFM idea I can't name just one
1. Andrew Jackson-Set precedent for the republic of the common man. Granted the common man was white but he set everything into motion.
2. Sam Houston- Ardent Texan and ardent unionist, spit in the confederates face and never wavered in his love for Texas or America
3. George Patton- The right amount of jingoism and leadership. Quintessentially American
4. Juan Seguin- Texas patriot, who later was expelled from both Texas and Mexico because both considered him a spy, only now getting his due.
5. Winston Churchill-The stiffest lip and very quotable.
6. Fredrick Douglas-Amazing forward thinker, had America figured out before anyone else
7. John Adams- A founding father who put his principles to work time and again, vastly underrated as a patriot and a president.
8. Giuseppe Garibaldi-Italian who put aside personal glory and pride so he could see a unified Italy, Truly a strong man.
The Marquis de Sade. Completely nuts he's a riot to read.
The Marquis de Sade. Completely nuts he's a riot to read.
you think the man who gave his name to "sadism" is cool?
:inquisitive:
but yes, he is qquite a riot to read:clown:
DisruptorX
03-07-2009, 02:30
Pyrrhus of Epirus.
Despite being one of the few generals to beat the Roman legions during the republican era, he just doesn't get the same respect as ol Hannibal.
I will except that some Soviet leaders didn't care much about the people, but Lenin did,
It's interesting to me how Lenin is, for some reason, often remembered as some kind of Old Major figure - some kind of great visionary who had his vision distorted by Stalin. In reality, he was pretty ruthless. His policy of War Communism for example, (arguably) resulted in, iirc, over 5 million deaths.
Meneldil
03-13-2009, 16:33
Yeah, Lenin wasn't really a nice guy. But unlike Stalin, whose murders were motivated by sheer paranoia and lust for power, Lenin's were motivated by the will to create a socialist republic.
At the end of the day, the result is the same, but the motivations weren't. Lenin always said in his writings that a socialist revolution would likely be bloody, and that revolutionnaries shouldn't be afraid to be ruthless with their opponents.
That's actually why Marxists rejected any idea of moderate socialism.
As for adding a new character here, I'd say Thomas Paine and Condorcet. Both of them were men of the Enlightnement, who tried to create a new, progressist society, without killing millions in the process.
Originally posted by Meneldil
Yeah, Lenin wasn't really a nice guy. But unlike Stalin, whose murders were motivated by sheer paranoia and lust for power, Lenin's were motivated by the will to create a socialist republic.
At the end of the day, the result is the same, but the motivations weren't. Lenin always said in his writings that a socialist revolution would likely be bloody, and that revolutionnaries shouldn't be afraid to be ruthless with their opponents.
The way to hell is paved with good intentions, or so they say.
Sarmatian
03-13-2009, 20:26
The way to hell is paved with good intentions, or so they say.
Does that mean that a way to heaven is paved with bad intentions?
Prince Cobra
03-13-2009, 20:31
I fear this nice thread may end locked because of the hot debates about marxism-leninism, stalinism and etc. So it may be a good idea to open a new thread in the Monastery... Recently there have not been many new threads there...
Let's keep this thread on the basis of personal opinion and drop extremely complicated debates like ideology and religion. These are for separate threads.
:bow:
Originally posted by Sarmatian
Does that mean that a way to heaven is paved with bad intentions?
:smart:
Whatever you say
Tristuskhan
03-13-2009, 22:35
I hesitate between those two:
Jean Meslier: the first one who dared writing "there is nothing like a God". And he was a priest, mind you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Meslier
And La Mettrie, surgeon and philosopher:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mettrie
Louis VI the Fat
03-18-2009, 12:51
I am going to be boring and simply name Napoleon. The hammer of progress. The man who put a bayonet on the Enlightenment. What is there not to love and hate about him? :2thumbsup:
If you go to Waterloo, it looks like a shrine dedicated to Napoleon. Wellington is barely mentioned in any of the monuments or literature.I'd say that is because Wellington wasn't all that important. In fact, neither was Waterloo. Napoleon had been decisively and irreversibly defeated before the Hundred Days, well before Wellington dared to ride out openly against Napoleon.
Russia, Leipzig, the Russian winter, the tactic of avoiding open battle with Napoleon and instead engaging his marshalls, a war of attrition. These defeated Napoleon at last.
Napoleon's short return from exile culminating in Waterloo was not important. It did serve to offer Wellington and Britain at last an opportunity to get a shot in too. Like a matador who hides backstage, waits for the bull to be defeated, and upon seeing the dying bull reaching up his head for a last gasp of air, quickly runs into the arena to stick his sword in and then claims glorious victory. :smash:
Jean Meslier: the first one who dared writing "there is nothing like a God". And he was a priest, mind you...
And La Mettrie, surgeon and philosopher:
Great choices! I love the combination of the two.
Et des boyaux du dernier prêtre serrons le cou du dernier roi...:beam:
Prince Cobra
03-18-2009, 19:06
I am going to be boring and simply name Napoleon. The hammer of progress. The man who put a bayonet on the Enlightenment. What is there not to love and hate about him? :2thumbsup:
I'd say that is because Wellington wasn't all that important. In fact, neither was Waterloo. Napoleon had been decisively and irreversibly defeated before the Hundred Days, well before Wellington dared to ride out openly against Napoleon.
Russia, Leipzig, the Russian winter, the tactic of avoiding open battle with Napoleon and instead engaging his marshalls, a war of attrition. These defeated Napoleon at last.
Napoleon's short return from exile culminating in Waterloo was not important. It did serve to offer Wellington and Britain at last an opportunity to get a shot in too. Like a matador who hides backstage, waits for the bull to be defeated, and upon seeing the dying bull reaching up his head for a last gasp of air, quickly runs into the arena to stick his sword in and then claims glorious victory. :smash:
Great choices! I love the combination of the two.
Et des boyaux du dernier prêtre serrons le cou du dernier roi...:beam:
About Britain, well, you miss Spain + the British gold for the continental enemies of Napoleon.
Mine favourite is Tokugawa Ieasy, the last of the three unifiers of Japan.
I hesitate between those two:
Jean Meslier: the first one who dared writing "there is nothing like a God". And he was a priest, mind you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Meslier
And La Mettrie, surgeon and philosopher:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mettrie
:laugh4:
somebody has not heard of Abu 3ala' al-ma3arri..he basically was a hardcore religoius sceptic; he did not get ot the level of Aeheist, but he was close.
but either way, this marks a shift from a faith based to a logic based society, or at least the beginings of it. (that said, I'm no Aetheist. no I have nothng against them).
Tristuskhan
03-18-2009, 21:40
:laugh4:
somebody has not heard of Abu 3ala' al-ma3arri..he basically was a hardcore religoius sceptic; he did not get ot the level of Aeheist, but he was close.
Of course I know him:2thumbsup: "there are two kinds of men on earth: those with a religion and no brain and those who have a brain but no religion". Hardcore religious sceptic, that's the word. A man well ahead of his time (10th-11th century AD). My knowledge in middle-age's philosophy is very narrow so I don't know if his positions were worked on and expanded. Do you have more info about him, Ibrahim?
Although i have great respect for Caesar, Octavius, Napoleon, Jackson and Churchill (Winston), I do not like some of their actions and/or personality trait.
My favorite would be Abraham Lincoln for his achievements and moral righteousness. He was no fanatic but did not shy away to go to war when diplomacy and mediation had fail. A truly great state man, a shame he die so early.
I have also a lot of admiration for Washington. He is on equal term with Abe in my favorite list.
PS: I think that the reputation of Arthur Wellesley is vastly overrated. He might have contributed to the defeat of Napoleon but later his failure as a state man shown the limit of his skills. Just because Montgomery manage to defeat Rommel did not mean he was a better general, there lots more factors to evaluate a person skills that just the win/lost pattern. Wellesley was an 'ok' general but there far better than him in British history, ex: Henry V, John Churchill (Marlborough), James Wolfe, Horatio Nelson.
Of course I know him:2thumbsup: "there are two kinds of men on earth: those with a religion and no brain and those who have a brain but no religion". Hardcore religious sceptic, that's the word. A man well ahead of his time (10th-11th century AD). My knowledge in middle-age's philosophy is very narrow so I don't know if his positions were worked on and expanded. Do you have more info about him, Ibrahim?
he was from tanukh, lost his eyesight aged 3 or 4, and was the muslim world's equivalent of a goth.
nah just kidding on the last part; but he was a blind Arab: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ma%60arri
this should be a good start.
I agree with him that reason should guide life, but not necessarliy the rest of it-there are religious people who have intellect afterall; e.g Isaac Newton, Galileo, Biruni, Robert Bakker, etc.
you should check this guy out too-Darwin would eat his rear out (If the west knew about him, or he Arabs learned his work..just imagine):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Jahiz
PanzerJaeger
03-21-2009, 09:10
My favorite would be Abraham Lincoln for his achievements and moral righteousness.
Abraham Lincoln's Program of Black Resettlement
By Robert Morgan
Many Americans think of Abraham Lincoln, above all, as the president who freed the slaves. Immortalized as the "Great Emancipator," he is widely regarded as a champion of black freedom who supported social equality of the races, and who fought the American Civil War (1861-1865) to free the slaves.
While it is true that Lincoln regarded slavery as an evil and harmful institution, it also true, as this paper will show, that he shared the conviction of most Americans of his time, and of many prominent statesmen before and after him, that blacks could not be assimilated into white society. He rejected the notion of social equality of the races, and held to the view that blacks should be resettled abroad. As President, he supported projects to remove blacks from the United States.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html
oh come on! I already know about this, but don't ruin all the other people's dreams-its their morphine:clown:
Rhyfelwyr
03-23-2009, 13:38
Oliver Cromwell. Led (arguably) the world's first nationwide popular revolution, stopped the Three Kingdoms from becoming absolute monarchies, and organised an incredibly disciplined army way ahead of its time. Plus other more Backroomish reasons. :wink:
Gustaf II Adolf/Karl XII
good call there.:yes:
@PanzerJaeger : nice article you linked to, the reading was enjoyable.
But It didn't change my view of good old Abe. I like him because he was no fanatic but a great compromiser. He knew the majority of the Americans at the time would object equality between white and black(as outline by the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858) . His solution of relocation (back to Africa or to create a new colony) shown his great skill at compromising and get the best solution for everyone taking account current mentality at the time. It must be take into consideration.
If as the friends of colonization hope, the present and coming generations of our countrymen shall by any means succeed in freeing our land from the dangerous presence of slavery, and, at the same time, in restoring a captive people to their long-lost fatherland, with bright prospects for the future, and this too, so gradually, that neither races nor individuals shall have suffered by the change, it will indeed be a glorious consummation. ---Abraham Lincoln, January 16, 1850
You have to keep in mind he lived a democratic country and need to be elected to get the chance to change the system (and even get those laws approuved by the senate!). He had to compromise and "play the act". It show elevated moral values (and skillful diplomatics) to do so and it is far better than stage a "coup d'état" to impose changes, even if it is for the "greater good" (Napoleon)
In the end it is the result that history judge, and abolish slavery he did. It was a great step for humanity (and many more remained to be archived, even today there lot to do still).
He was also very successful at bringing back the country together after the civil war, again by showing his great skill at compromising.
It is his generous opening to the confederate states warrantied that there would not be a second civil war 10-20 years later. Lots of wars would have been avoid if they had follow this example. Only after WW2 they (finally) got the hint that repression and oppression is not a good way to turn your enemies into allies (and only because FDR died, else Germany and Japan would have been repress )
@Rhyfelwyr : Oliver Cromwell. I had totally forgotten to mention him. Although the behavior of some of his generals under his command in Ireland tainted his reputation. On par with Napoleon for his statesmanship. Still Good call.
PS: @PanzerJaeger, I'm doing research and reading (when i can find the time between, working, traveling, moving to a new place and playing ETW a bit) on the Offensive vs Defensive theories so we can start a wunderbare discussion about it. I'll start the thread next month if you did not started it already.
navarro951
03-23-2009, 21:59
Saladin, guy is a badass; gotta love those Saracens.
Mount Suribachi
03-24-2009, 16:58
Oliver Cromwell. Led (arguably) the world's first nationwide popular revolution, stopped the Three Kingdoms from becoming absolute monarchies, and organised an incredibly disciplined army way ahead of its time. Plus other more Backroomish reasons. :wink:
Beat me to it. I am fascinated by him and King Charles I. Two great, yet highly flawed men, each in their own way.
Tristuskhan
03-24-2009, 17:41
you should check this guy out too-Darwin would eat his rear out (If the west knew about him, or he Arabs learned his work..just imagine):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Jahiz
Ranking high in my own hall of fame now, thank you Ibrahim.
Ranking high in my own hall of fame now, thank you Ibrahim.
and if you want more PWNage, just go to the lists of Arab and persian scientists-muslim and non muslim. either way, they rule. they are as interesting as greeks or romans-sometimes even more so..
EDIT: you can find parachutes, sociology, anthropology, and whatever you fancy-even downright Aetheism, for your benifit.
Zajuts149
04-18-2009, 17:59
Robert Guiscard.
Harald Hardråde.
Oleander Ardens
04-18-2009, 21:17
So many. The Elder Moltke is somebody I just discovered recently, a very very interesting person - his long voyages in the Orient are highly enjoyable, a very open and intelligent mind. A brilliant leader of men too.
Champion of Protestant europe.
That can be disputed with Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, Lion of the North, and leader of the Protestant cause in the Thirty Years War before meeting his end in battle.
Hard to nail it down to just one.
Henry V (Nasty little SOB that he was.)
T.E. Lawrence
Scipio
That can be disputed with Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, Lion of the North, and leader of the Protestant cause in the Thirty Years War before meeting his end in battle.
Overrated, he may have perfected volley-tactics but in the end every battle was won because of superior numbers.
PanzerJaeger
04-20-2009, 07:06
Overrated, he may have perfected volley-tactics but in the end every battle was won because of superior numbers.
Oh no you di-int! You better have your sources ready because he's about to come down on you hard! :laugh4:
HA to make it even worse, the volley tactics the Swedes pride themselves on isn't Swedish, they adapted the Dutch tactics against the French, the only difference is that Gustav Adolf used a forward rotation instead of a backward (and didn't have to fight superior numbers)
edyzmedieval
04-20-2009, 17:10
Basil II Bulgaroctonus - Brilliant statesman and Byzantine Emperor, lead the Empire to its greatest glory
Other favourites are Salah al Din Ibn Ayyub (Saladin), Otto von Bismarck, Count Camillo Benso di Cavour, Erwin Rommel, Hannibal.
Basil II Bulgaroctonus - Brilliant statesman and Byzantine Emperor, lead the Empire to its greatest glory
they should have called him "faqqaa'ul3uyoon" instead of "bulgaroctonos"*:clown:
yeah he was awesome though.
*Bulgar-slayer
HA to make it even worse, the volley tactics the Swedes pride themselves on isn't Swedish, they adapted the Dutch tactics against the French, the only difference is that Gustav Adolf used a forward rotation instead of a backward (and didn't have to fight superior numbers)
A shame that wasn't his only innovation, and a shame you made an oversimplification.
It is true, the "Dutch formation" was already developed. It called for a thinner line in order to put more fire on the enemy. Gustavus adopted this and took it further. Putting his men at about 5-6 ranks deep, as opposed to the original 10, it allowed even more fire and maneuverability. Additionally, whereas a normal deployment called for the formation of pikes in the center to avoid friendly fire, Gustavus put his muskets in front, with the pikes on the flanks and smattered around to support and ward off cavalry.
In a time where there was about 2 pikemen to every 1 musketeer, Gustavus had about 3 to 2.
In the typical deployment, cavalry was placed at the flanks, alone, to exploit flanking moves and fight enemy cavalry. In order to make sure his cavalry didn't fall from the German cavalry, he put additional units of pike and shot. This allowed him to drop a number of enemy horsemen, and when they reached the cavalry and pikemen, it allowed the cavalry to reform and fire their guns as well. It gave them an edge in combat, and one of the first uses of combined arms.
Gustavus often found artillery too large and cumbersome to apply to his idea of aggressive, mobile, warfare. Against tradition, most of his batteries were made up of 3 pound brass cannon, allowing mobile deployments and reactions.
All these reforms made maneuver and reaction easier as oppossed to other armies. The line formations allowed them to maneuver without spearing their own men, and able to reform his line fast, albiet with some confusion on the part of the pikemen who needed to get to the flanks.
Gustavus never favored one part of his army over another, whereas many other armies favored the noble cavalry. His musketeers could fire twice, possibly three, times faster than his enemy. His units were extensively cross trained, his cavalry could operate cannon, his pikemen could fire (Naturally, not at the same rate as his musketeers), and his musketeers could ride, if the situation called for it.
Gustavus Adolphus made a huge impact on the tactics of warfare, and, in my eyes, and the eyes of other general's such as Clausewitz and Napoleon, earned the title of the "Father of Modern Warfare".
but in the end every battle was won because of superior numbers.
And? Breitenfeld. Look it up.
Meh, evolutionary step from dutch pike/musket tactics, the real father of modern warfare is Frederique the Great of Prussia.
Meh, evolutionary step from dutch pike/musket tactics, the real father of modern warfare is Frederique the Great of Prussia.
I'll just take it you didn't bother to read the post at all.
I'll just take it you didn't bother to read the post at all.
Yes I did, combined arms isn't new either, I am not saying that he was a bad tactician, he just doesn't deserve all the credit he he recieves. He made the most out of what was at hand but he didn't revolutionize anything, just a minor step forward from the tactics of Maurice of Nassau, who's reforms were a major leap forward. It's called dutch tactics for a reason. The real father of modern warfare would be Maurice of Nassau then. But, Maurice of Naussau isn't the father of modern warfare either, the father of modern/progressive warfare happens to be Frederique the Great of Prussia, now that was a mobility-tiger.
I'm not sure if I have a favorite, but there are some that I really like. (and of course there's no way I could come close to the entire list)
European (no particular order)
Alexander the Great
Frederick Barbarosa
Julius Cesar
William the Conqueror
Thomas Aquinas
Queen Elizabeth I
William Shakespeare
Ancient Greeks! (too many to list lol)
Other:
Patton
Ronald Regan
Henry Ford
Nikola Tesla
Thomas Edison
Albert Einstein
And for the controversial one:
Adolf Hitler. While I know that there were parts of him that were terrible, I still have fascination for a man who can subdue an entire people to his will. He was an amazing orator and if he had not had his deep shortcomings could have been more respectable such as Napoleon. A good example that no matter how evil someone is, they still have admirable qualities.
Custodis Hellenius
06-19-2009, 16:48
Oliver Cromwell. Excellent General, ripped England and Ireland apart :skull: and was one of the biggest b******s the world has ever seen.:whip:
Xipe Totec
06-30-2009, 15:23
Isaac Newton :idea2:
So many brilliant ideas. Worked out vast details of so many new areas of science and maths completely on his own. Stuck a large needle into his eye to test a theory about how the eye works!:inquisitive:
Custodis Hellenius
07-01-2009, 18:09
We can do scientists? Ok, Micheal Faraday. Uncovered the secrets of electricity and invented both the electrical generator and engine. Responsible for most of the modern electrical innovations.
Also, Galleleio (sp), a genius and shamelessly persecuted for his beliefs. Started the innovation in scientific defiance of the Church.
Samurai Waki
07-04-2009, 09:58
Oddly enough, my favourite historical personality is Einstein, genius, and had wonderful perspective.
Centurion1
07-04-2009, 17:45
Genghis Khan. Not the brutal dictator as assumed by western culture. don't agree, read the book Genghis Khan and the making of the modern world, and come talk to me.
Plus an amazing from rags to riches story, simply awe inspiring
ICantSpellDawg
07-05-2009, 13:39
1) James K Polk
2) Horatio Nelson
3) Stonewall Jackson
4) Winston Churchill
5) Reinhard Heydrich (I know, I know - I just read a book about him once and his ability to manipulate and uncover truth truly terrified me)
Centurion1
07-05-2009, 23:08
i must say that your selections did live upstanding lives. I wouldnt call them "sterile mass murderers" though.
1. James Polk- he went to war with mexico. This does not mean he annihilated a indigenous population unable to defend themselves. (i do admire the man however, even though he is rarely credited with anything.)
2. Horatio nelson- Now the napoleonic era is not my expertise, but i dont remember the admiral really burning towns down. i dont consider destroying Frances fleet as genocide.
3. Stonewall Jackson- Not a murderer, he was simply a general whom the south could not live without. Maybe you are thinking of Tecumseh Sherman?
4. winston churchill- debatable, i guess you could call the razings of munich and frankfurt as mass murder, it is debatable tho
5. reynhard heindrich- yeah there was a clean cut psychopath, and your reason is perfectly valid to me.
sorry if this comes off as condescending, im just dying for a little intellectual stimulation, lol. dont mean to bash your figures or your ideas, there are all good choices.
ICantSpellDawg
07-06-2009, 02:11
edit
Centurion1
07-06-2009, 14:04
I want to apologize, its simply supposed to be a listing of peoples favorite personalities, not an analysis, its your choice not mine. :bow:
Imperator Invictus
07-29-2009, 10:46
Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa
Reverend Joe
08-03-2009, 17:54
The greatest misanthrope of all time, W. C. Fields. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_C_Fields) A shamelessly angry, arrogant, misogynistic drunk who shamelessly mocked the upper class with his boorish impersonation of them, complete with top hat and cane. He also said some of the greatest quotes of the 20th century, such as "Sure, I like children... girl children, around eighteen, twenty" and "I never drink water because fish **** in it." My hero. I only wish he had starred in a movie with Groucho Marx.
Of course, once I get to know more about him and read some of his literature, I suspect that Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens will replace Fields as my favorite historical character.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.