Favorite Historical figure?

[Julian the apostate]

This belongs in the monestary but i'm a new member so i'm here. nonetheless for everyone not just the historians

me...
Julian the apostate
financial mastermind, philosopher, returned the empire to paganism or tried, military genius, religious freedom, reformer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_the_Apostate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Julian.jpg

almost restored the empire. Restored the german frontier. Almost took the persian capital before dying from some sources to a christian within his own ranks ~:mecry:

[CountArach]

Well I will have to go with a plain old Scipio Africanus... victor of 2nd Punic War.

[dragomix]

Stefan Dusan, our emperor (serbian emperor).

[naut]

Alfred the Great (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_the_Great)

:bow:

[Monarch]

Winston Churchill. Not rated the greatest Britain ever for nothing :)

[IrishArmenian]

Saint Vartan. Die-hard Christian, lead an Armenian rebellion against the Persians after they essentially said covert to Zoarastrianism (sp?) or die. He chose to fight and made a stand with 6,000 men against the whole Persian army in which the Persians lost tens of thousands. He was killed in battle later.

[Julian the apostate]

fascinating never heard of vartan, checked wikipedia, apparently a good of the well known byzantines and some other monarchs were decended from:2thumbsup:

[pvt_isaac]

Robert E. Lee. A man of God and a man of conscience.

[MSB]

Nerva (Roman Emperor 96-98)
He organised low interest loans for poor farmers.
He used the interest as support for orphans and poor children.
He listened to the senate.
He invented the "Augustus - Ceasar" system

Shame he's not famous. Wonder why? It could have something to do with the fact that he was not evil or corrupt.

[maximus overlord]

Erwin Rommel. Though he was a member of the nazi-party, i have to say that he was one of this worlds greatest tactits.

[Innocentius]

Favorite and favorite...Most historical figures were .... from modern perspectives.
Charles XII, Frederick of Prussia, Karl the great, Edward I ("Longshanks"), Ottavio Piccolomini, Albrecht von Wallenstein, Madog ap Llywelyn, Owain Glyndwr, Belisarius, Alexander Nevki(j?), Oliver Cromwell and Béla IV top my list though.

[Craterus]

Alexander the Great, Hitler.

[Julian the apostate]

awesome so many people i'd never heard of

to add 3 more
Lord arthur wellington. old nosey. from assaye to waterloo, a brilliant man who didn't quite care about his men but kept them alive for his own sake

Flavius Stilicho - roman general, revolutionized roman cavalry held off alaric, reduced the court size

Flavius Aëtius - another roman, brilliant man and politic, spent years with the huns, renewed the empire, held off attila and the horde at chalon

[dragomix]

Alexander the Great, Hitler.

HITLER? Men who killed 10 000 000 people. :dizzy2: :thumbsdown:

[Csargo]

Rommel, FDR:iloveyou:

[Julian the apostate]

be nice people, not condoneing hitler he was a cruel and insane bastard but he was charasmatic, vicious and a brilliant political speaker. not that that makes it better

technically stalin was worse, but all in the name of progress history forgets the crimes of the victors and their allies

[Rocketman]

Robert E. Lee.

[dacdac]

Timur.
He, on one paticular siege, ordered his men that numbered 10,000 to give him a severed head of a townsperson or be killed. Some soldiers even paid others to decapitate the people for them so that they would not have to. He was very mean, but a brilliant tactician, a mastermind in the art of war, and led his empire to a massive size. But he died of drinking too much ice water. Haha!! Stupid.

[Wishazu]

Hannibal Barca "We will find a way, or make one" Arguably the greatest commander(ref: Cannae, Trebia, Trasimene) that has ever lived, he failed in his war against Rome(2nd Punic war), but what a glorious faliure it was.

King Leonidas of Sparta, leader of the 300 at Thermopylae.

Winston Churchill "We shall fight them on the beaches..." The greatest Briton.

[Motep]

Alexander the Great, Hannibal Barca, Ghandi, Sir Francis Drake, ol' Ben Franklin, Caligula (for his dementedness), and Bill Gates for making the computer cool~:cool:

[AntiochusIII]

This belongs in the monestary but i'm a new member so i'm here. nonetheless for everyone not just the historians

me...
Julian the apostate
financial mastermind, philosopher, returned the empire to paganism or tried, military genius, religious freedom, reformer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_the_Apostate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Julian.jpg

almost restored the empire. Restored the german frontier. Almost took the persian capital before dying from some sources to a christian within his own ranks ~:mecry:I'm not exactly sure how accurate the account was, but I must admit that I myself find the character of Julian the Apostate to be of great interest, and one of the most overlooked emperors of the late Roman era. He seems as if to live on the same dream I often evoked as a dreamy child: attempting to revive dying empires with a breath of personal conviction and a life of glory.

Of course, one can never be sure he will be as great as it might seem at first glance.

It's as if he got the same treatment as "Brokeback Mountain," a one-liner slap-and-forget description: for him, "Tried to reverse Christianity, died early;" for the movie in comparison, "Gay cowboys."

However, I think I could blame history for that. It's often very cruel to those who lost.

:creep:

Are you have brain tumor or something. HITLER? Men who killed 10 000 000 people.It might be sarcasm or it might not, but fascination in a character so morbidly extreme is actually pretty common and in no way automatically dictates that it is the same as admiration.

[Julian the apostate]

would make a good movie:beam: :balloon2: the church would love it, :balloon2:

sry bout the accuracy i remember most of it from a project long ago:oops:
he changed a lot of the tax system i remembered and going after the size of the courts is a financial matter on its own.
his attempt to bring the empire back to paganism can be seen as an attempt at religious freedom and he tried to rebuild the temple at jeruselem. earthquakes and disaster (gave the christians a great symbol)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Strasbourg
strasbourg was a brilliant victory even though most likely due to his simple presence on the field and how much he had improved the training of his men
uphill outnumbered with exhausted troops he re ran the almans into the rhine
plus a philosopher something to love in a man in power
and of course nothing better than an orphan rising to power lol ahh
hope that clears up a little bit of it sry

[Csargo]

Oh yeah Hitler's up there too. :yes:

[Lord Winter]

Peter the great for bringing Russia out of the middle ages with sheer will power, when almost everyone was against (In and out of Russia).

Lee is also one my favorites. Somehow he managed to keep the confederacy in the fight years after they should have lost.

[AntiochusIII]

Julian the apostate: I've studied that much of him, of course, but the records are pretty short and aren't exactly detailed. He reminds me strongly of Germanicus: died too young to judge their true potential.

One of the reasons I'm quite fascinated by him is because of his background: it is very, very rare that Rome has a "philosopher king" on its throne (Julian was the second and the only second, I believe), and if Marcus Aurelius is indicative of his kind then they would be the stuff legends are made of. The pattern of Julian's actions in his short reign also shows something of an attempt to emulate the legendary Emperor.

Of course, believing that most Roman emperors can even come close to Marcus Aurelius' achievements...

[dragomix]

be nice people, not condoneing hitler he was a cruel and insane bastard but he was charasmatic, vicious and a brilliant political speaker. not that that makes it better

technically stalin was worse, but all in the name of progress history forgets the crimes of the victors and their allies

Stalin was bad, but not worse than Hitler. He was cruel, but he did not wanted to get rid of nations like hitler, or forcing humans to starwe to death and putting them to camps like Ausvic, killing them in gas chambers... So lets not make Hitler favorite historical character.

[Subedei]

Hitler.

WTH????~:confused: ~:pissed:

[naut]

Stalin was bad, but not worse than Hitler. He was cruel, but he did not wanted to get rid of nations like hitler, or forcing humans to starwe to death and putting them to camps like Ausvic, killing them in gas chambers... So lets not make Hitler favorite historical character.
Your forgetting that it is likely that Stalin killed more people in Siberia than Hitler did in his camps.

IIRC the facts are something to the order of:

Hitler: 6 million
Stalin: 15 million

[Subedei]

Your forgetting that it is likely that Stalin killed more people in Siberia than Hitler did in his camps.

IIRC the facts are something to the order of:

Hitler: 6 million
Stalin: 15 million

This is what happens when bad is compared to evil???? I don´t know...both were SOBs-big time. IMO both disqualified....

BTW: Ibn Battuta 4ever!!!!

[Julian the apostate]

i believe the death toll from stalin was easily worse then hitler and his own people :book:
his supposed agricultural reforms and movements to siberia devestated the population. both men purged their military. stalin had rivals killed incompetents killed
Soviet records are shit but nonetheless the death toll is atleast 3 million in camps and from excecutions. however another ten million at the least died in the repressions, purges and famines of soviet russia. some of these can be attributed to the harshness of Russia but not all.
both had horredously cruel secret police Nkvd and gestapo
and mabye this is a bit brutal stalins crimes are alos those of a scientific nature, refusing to be wrong he killed scientists who disagreed with him. what the party taught on fertilizers and agriculture was the countries right or wrong. unfortunately it was the scientific wrong.
while this doesn't make him worse the simple fact that stalins massacres are glossed over possibly because of russias stance in world war two is sad. both were criminals, sociopaths, and brutally competative killers. looking at it right now i guess u can't say one was worse as that each killed for different reasons


Gulags? definately camps just located in beautiful siberia.
don't mean to be argumentative, and your right on hitler as attempting to destroy the eastern european jes (word for it, Ashkenazi Jews i think thats it) so i'm not sure.
:shrug: not sure. please post if i'm wrong or anything (don't mean to change the subject of the thread but i'd like to get a better picture of the time)

[Innocentius]

Your forgetting that it is likely that Stalin killed more people in Siberia than Hitler did in his camps.

IIRC the facts are something to the order of:

Hitler: 6 million
Stalin: 15 million

You're forgetting millions of people here. Apart from the 6 million jews that died in the german concentration camps, an additional 5 million people of other ethnic minorities died there. Also, probably a few hundred germans were arrested and executed for being communists, socialists and other political ideologies that did not fit with the nazi's view on the world.
If you then count the casualties from WWII, which in many ways was started by Hitler and the Third Reich, you could add dozends of millions. I belive that 20 million russian soldiers died in the German offensive and at the battles of Stalingrad etc.

I'm not sure about 15 million people for Stalin, but it sounds pretty reasonable.


And I'll add Gustavus II Adolphus, Bertrand du Guesclin and Johann Tserclaes (Tilly) to my list.

[Miloshus]

My favourite historical figure is Serbian general Radomir Putnik,
First he destroyed Turks in 1912 and he has commanded Serbian army during the WW 1.

[Craterus]

All those questioning my choice in Hitler:

The topic is about my favourite historical character. Is it about who I admire? No.

Hitler just happens to be one of those historical characters that I like to discuss and read about. He was a fascinating man. Not a particularly nice one, but fascinating nonetheless.

EDIT: And Csar, you must really like me. You've even taken to copying me! :balloon2: ~;)

[dragomix]

Then I can chouse Ratko Mladic, Radovan Karadzic, Slobodan Milosevic. They all were (and are) fascinating, but I dont think that they are favourite historical characters. You could chouse someone who done something beter, and not destroying half of europ.

[Craterus]

But Hitler is a favourite of mine. A favourite to discuss. He was a fantastic politician too.

[dragomix]

He did not brought enything good to this world. If you know how things were back than in Germany, youll see that being a great politician was not to hard. He was jus a wrong person in a wrong time thats all.

[Craterus]

I think it was amazing how he turned Germany from the poorest, weakest nation in Europe into a superpower that all the other nations were scared of.

It wasn't a good thing, in the end, but still quite incredible.

[dragomix]

Germany was poor because Germany lost WW1, and they had to pay war damage. When Hitler came they stop paying war damage, and Germany is a super power economically speaking, so that was not hard too.

[Craterus]

Fact is, Hitler got himself elected in quite a fashion. Had the guts to stop paying reparations and directly defy the Treaty of Versailles.

I still admire what he did. Yeah, case closed.

[Calgacus]

Mahatma Gandhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi) seems to have been rather a decent sort, and most impressively contrived to bring down an empire that had been in place for the better part of two centuries by non-violent means. Possibly a 'passive resistance' Totalwar game would be a good seller. I mean, at the end of the day, no one really thinks imperialism is a good idea, do they? Passive resistance/ anti-imperialism Totalwar would have a 'feel good' factor that's absent when you realise that you just laid waste the entire Iberian peninsula and a large part of modern-day France. All that rich cultural diversity gone, all that senseless violence and chaos...

[Miloshus]

Then I can chouse Ratko Mladic, Radovan Karadzic, Slobodan Milosevic. They all were (and are) fascinating, but I dont think that they are favourite historical characters. You could chouse someone who done something beter, and not destroying half of europ.

If there werent Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic to stop Muslim agression in Bosnia, there wouldnt be Serbian republic (Republika Srpska) in BiH,
so try not to look at them like war criminals.

[Miloshus]

Hitler:
-A man who is responsible for 2 ww
-A man who wanted to clean Europe of Jews, Slavs and Gypsys
-A man who murderd 50.000.000 people with his decisions
-A man who screwed up his 6.th army at Stalingrad
-A man who did not have any military knowlidge and yet he has led millions of German soldiers to pointless battles in wich many perrished
-A man who wrote mein campf
-A man who was before war an artist
-A man who is a sinonim for a devil himself
-A man who ordered his troops to fight to the last man and then, shamefully took his own life
-A man who enjoyed his peacefull life when millions have suffered
-A man who had in army only a rank of cooporal( like our ******* comrade Tito)

And at the end, I think that only the lowest of psychopats could do such things.

[Slartibardfast]

Diogenes.
"One of "The Dog Philosophers," his personal nickname was "The Dog" and Plato referred to him as "Socrates gone mad." He denied all physical wealth and pleasure; he lived in a barrel and his only possessions were a robe to cover himself and a walking stick."

But then I was a born Cynic.

[Craterus]

Diogenes.
"One of "The Dog Philosophers," his personal nickname was "The Dog" and Plato referred to him as "Socrates gone mad." He denied all physical wealth and pleasure; he lived in a barrel and his only possessions were a robe to cover himself and a walking stick."

But then I was a born Cynic.

Good suggestion.

Allegedly, when asked "If you could be anyone else, who would you be?", Alexander the Great replied "I would be Diogenes".

[Conradus]

Alexander the Great: arguably one of the best tacticians ever, you have to admire his conquest of Persia
Hannibal Barca: though he left his bussiness with Rome unfinished, still a military genious.
G.Julius Caesar: another military genious, imo greatest roman commander ever (though Aetius, Pompey, Scipio come close)
Attila: wel not really admire, but the way he unified all the european barbarians and then went into a battle in Gaul because he found a defeat in exchange for Aetius' life fair.
Ghenghis Khan: here I admire the unification of all those tribes and making a formidable and huge empire out of them.
Jeanne d'Arc: she may have had some mental problems, but she was a definite moral boost to the french army.

I'm going to end here, there must be thousands more worth mentioning (Du Guesclin, Erik the Red, Rommel and Montgomory, Confucius, Diogenes, Socrates, Cicero, Demosthenes,...)

[Orb]

This belongs in the monestary but i'm a new member so i'm here. nonetheless for everyone not just the historians

me...
Julian the apostate
financial mastermind, philosopher, returned the empire to paganism or tried, military genius, religious freedom, reformer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_the_Apostate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Julian.jpg

almost restored the empire. Restored the german frontier. Almost took the persian capital before dying from some sources to a christian within his own ranks ~:mecry:

Hm... I always thought that his attempts to restore paganism were a failure and just met with apathy, so he ended up deciding that Christians couldn't teach literature. I thought he died because he went into battle without a breastplate?

Edit: I can't decide on a single favourite figure, so I'll go with two

1) al-Malik al-Afdal ibn Badr al-Jamali Shahanshah

The vizier who held Egypt together during the crusades, despite a number of military defeats, his reputation didn't falter and his men were fanatically loyal. It was only after his death (attributed by some sources to the Caliph, who resented his power) that the Egyptian government and army collapsed.

2) Duke Robert Guiscard

The Norman who rose from insignificance to inflict horrific defeats on both the Byzantine and the German Roman Empires, and, together with his brother, established Sicily, Apulia and Calabria as Norman provinces. Only stopped by a fever.

[King of Atlantis]

Well by I'll take favorite to mean admire. I know that favorite could simply imply fascination, but I can answer as I please and I thus will do admiration:sweatdrop:

In no real order:

Genghis Khan
Charlemagne
Robert the Bruce
Jesus
Voltaire
John Locke
Sidartha
Asoka
Martin Luther
Martin Luther King Jr.
Frederick the Great
Cesear Augustus
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
John Quincy Adams
Robert E. Lee
John F. Kennedy
Jimmy Carter
Bob Marley
Thomas Edison
Albert Einstien
Isaac Newton
Charles Darwin
Adam Smith
Mark Twain
Alexander Dumas
J.R.R Tolkien

Alright, there you go a mix of political, religous, philosphical and scientifical leaders. Not to mention my favorite writers and musician. If you want to know why I admire any of these men please feel free to ask.

[Orb]

I don't see what's so fantastic about Robert de Brus. He won one battle, which proved to be inconsequential.

[Mithrandir]

Well by I'll take favorite to mean admire. I know that favorite could simply imply fascination, but I can answer as I please and I thus will do admiration:sweatdrop:

In no real order:
Voltaire
John Locke
Martin Luther King
Bob Marley
Thomas Edison
Albert Einstien
Isaac Newton
Charles Darwin
J.R.R Tolkien



:2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:

[King of Atlantis]

I don't see what's so fantastic about Robert de Brus. He won one battle, which proved to be inconsequential.

Winning a battle that gave Scotland independence till the Stuarts which ruled both nations. Then finally the Scots gave away their independence leaving only one crown, becuase well they kinda had too. But it meant Scotland would be united with England on MUCH more equal terms. I mean Wales doesnt even get representation on the flag.

Plus when ruling Scotland before the wars of independence England served as extremely harsh rulers. Surely Liberating Scotland from such unbearable living conditions is merit on its own.

Not to mention the Bruce liberated Ireland, though his brother would loose it rather quick.

And as for later generations, lets not blame Robert for his heir's, King David, incompetance. It does not mean that Robert did not rule exceptionally.

*Im sorry for the hastly constructed ordering of my post, but I think you should be able to pick out the main points.

[Csargo]

EDIT: And Csar, you must really like me. You've even taken to copying me! :balloon2: ~;)

Hitler's a fascinating guy not that I worship what he did or anything like that but he's still fascinating.

:iloveyou:

[Derfasciti]

Great thread! i gotta admit I have quite a few and not in any order.

Robert E. Lee A good commander and seemingly moral one. Same with Stonewall Jackson.


Oliver Cromwell because he was not only humble and pious but knew how to be a truly balanced ruler (for the most part).

Napoleon Bonaparte! C'mon guys, he was a charismatic and strong leader. My only problem is his moral questionability but that's almost inevitable in such people.

Adolf Hitler- No I do not revere him, but there is a respect for someone who did so much (obviously not the best for society) but he did a lot nonetheless. I tend to think that if he had perhaps a bit of a different personality and he let rationality come to him, he could have been one of the greatest leaders in world history.

Frederick the Great- One of the most highly considered "enlightened despots" of our history as a planet.

Jesus Christ-:iloveyou: King of the Jews:crown: and for some of us, personal friend.

[King of Atlantis]

Oliver Cromwell because he was not only humble and pious but knew how to be a truly balanced ruler (for the most part).


So balanced that right after his death the English would call back the monarchy. Not because his son brought much change in policy, but because they simply were able to rebell against his lesser skilled son. This doesnt mean that the resentment wasnt there during Cromwell's reign, quite the opposite. Simply that Cromwell had the ability to stay in power dispite his popularity. Something many charismatic dictators are able to do. I rank Cromwell with men such as Castro and Saddam.

[IrishArmenian]

fascinating never heard of vartan, checked wikipedia, apparently a good of the well known byzantines and some other monarchs were decended from:2thumbsup:
Yup. In fact, the Vartanian family are descended from him. That is my mother's last name. It is still alive though, it seems to have always had at least one male to carry it on... Natural preservation?
Also, Brian Boruma (Boru) Cennedi
MLK jr.
Ghandi
Saladin and Richard (Fierce enemies, yet noble to each other)
John Locke
Marx
Emperor Constantine
Gregory the Illuminator
Mesroph
How could I forget Jesus? I must not've thought of him as a historical figure, but he is.

[Derfasciti]

Stalin was bad, but not worse than Hitler. He was cruel, but he did not wanted to get rid of nations like hitler, or forcing humans to starwe to death and putting them to camps like Ausvic, killing them in gas chambers... So lets not make Hitler favorite historical character.


Not to drag this into an argument, but come on. Stalin DID have camps too. Even before Hitler, the "Gulaks" (Peasant landowners) were denounced as "bloodsucking parasites" and quite literally massacred.

There was also a massive famine in certain places in Russia that (whether orchestrated or not I don't remember) that killed over 5 million people. Stalin killed MANY more people. He was also an rabid anti-semite and I believe much crazier then Hitler.

Hitler, while obviously hated for his ideals today, was pretty popular with his then and we've got to understand this if we are to observer history in it's entirety and with accuracy. Hitler actually did some good in Germany (jobs, economy, stability, unity, etc.)

Once again, not trying to start a massive argument here, just trying to correct some possible misunderstandings.










So balanced that right after his death the English would call back the monarchy. Not because his son brought much change in policy, but because they simply were able to rebell against his lesser skilled son. This doesnt mean that the resentment wasnt there during Cromwell's reign, quite the opposite. Simply that Cromwell had the ability to stay in power dispite his popularity. Something many charismatic dictators are able to do. I rank Cromwell with men such as Castro and Saddam.


Hmm perhaps all I've read about him has been slanted towards him in bias. I've never heard such an opinion before but I'm no expert in any of this. I must defer to our more specialized members.:bow:

[AntiochusIII]

Hitler, while obviously hated for his ideals today, was pretty popular with his then and we've got to understand this if we are to observer history in it's entirety and with accuracy. Hitler actually did some good in Germany (jobs, economy, stability, unity, etc.)It was widely predicted that, should the War not happened, the German economy was heading for a severe downturn by 1940. The entire "miraculous" economic recovery was actually a bubble economy driven by massive government spending on what I'd fancifully call the military-industrial complex.

Germany's War almost felt like an ancient economic war driven to prevent economic downfall; if anything, Septimius Severus infamously "saved" the Roman economy for another 40 years by the sheer amount of loot he gained from the destructive invasion of the Parthians.

[naut]

Not to drag this into an argument, but come on. Stalin DID have camps too. Even before Hitler, the "Gulaks" (Peasant landowners) were denounced as "bloodsucking parasites" and quite literally massacred.

There was also a massive famine in certain places in Russia that (whether orchestrated or not I don't remember) that killed over 5 million people. Stalin killed MANY more people. He was also an rabid anti-semite and I believe much crazier then Hitler.

Hitler, while obviously hated for his ideals today, was pretty popular with his then and we've got to understand this if we are to observer history in it's entirety and with accuracy. Hitler actually did some good in Germany (jobs, economy, stability, unity, etc.)
Hitler eventually caused more deaths, the 62 million killed on both sides in WWII.

However, think of it this way. It is possible that Hitler stopped Stalin from doing worse.

[Samurai Waki]

and you have to look at Hitler from a moralistic stand point. Hitler was amongst the worst of the worst people to have ever lived, he changed the world, well...the Western World in such a way that our society generally considers what he did as unspeakable and unforgiveable, before him, most of what was considered right and wrong in this world were badly skewed. So you don't see blatant racism as often, nor do you see Nationalistic Western Countries with eyes aimed on creating a new world order... and, I don't want this to turn into the backroom so I'll stop there.

As far as Favorite Historical Figures Go

I'm very much a fan of Napoleon Bonaparte and Erwin Rommel, one of the few "Nazis" with some very honourable and redeeming qualities.

[Subedei]

I think it was amazing how he turned from the poorest, weakest nation in Europe into a superpower that all the other nations were scared of.

It wasn't a good thing, in the end, but still quite incredible.
:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
Oh man, this is what all the extreme right in Germany/Europe/world state [I don´t include Craterus here, b/c I don´t know him and i guess he is not!!!!!]. It is simply not true.

E.g. Unemployment: is it really a big thing to let tens of thousands of people work to build Autobahnen? For poor money btw. Not that far away from the pyramids. And for the industrial sector: POWs, Jews, Gypsies etc. were FORCED to work in the German industries. Lots of them lost their lives by starvation, the harsh conditions etc...

This "great politician" stole money from the Jews, intellectuals, minorieties, oppositions by: confiscating [sp] wealth, amongst art, houses, firms etc...Nazi economy was NOT working all so well, they had their "resources".... Plus: The Nazis stole everything in the territories they conquered, well just about every army does that, that may be true.

The "incredible" things he did were made possible by the suffering of others....on a level which is everything, but glorious.

In my own words: old AH was a mustage pimpin´, ego-trippin´ megalomanic who didn´t give a rats a** about anybody. This guy sent kids [amongst my uncle] of 15+ to fight. Really really incredible.

BTW I live in Germany. I know my way around in history & I apologize for the relatively harsh tone in my post. You guys should understand that. I know first-hand and stories from old people and one of my favorite sentences is by the grandma [who wasn ot in the NSDAP] of one of my friends: She stated asked about Hitler: "He was not one of us. He was not a smart man!".

No reasons for fanboying this dangerous weirdo...:thumbsdown:

Oh, I´d like to add Lao Tzu to my list of characters....

[Sarmatian]

Julius Caesar and Peter the Great.

You can not compare stallin to hitler. Stallin was harsh dictator but, arguably, it was his reforms that allowed russia to win against nazi germany. From a backward agricultural country he created industrial superpower. Could it be done in such a short time without harsh measures? Debatable...

In a way, his treatment of political opponents was no worse than that of Peter the Great or Ivan the Terrible. Several centuries later, true, but a big part of russia was several centuries behind...

[Basileus]

Archimides, propably the smartest man that ever lived on our little planet or maybe he was from the future :D

[nokhor]

along the lines of julian the apostate, my favorite 'glorious failure' is diocletian. went from simple peasent origins to roman emperor. when faced with a rebellion by his number one general, did the unprecedented step of sharing the empire with him, rather than start another civil war. he saw through the heart of the matter and concluded that the instability at the top of the roman hierarchy was responsible for a lot of the military and social upheavals and decay in roman society. attempted to curb that by creating the tetrarchy, a system that would funnel the ambitious, talented, generals through the system, so they wouldn't have to keep trying to break the system as they scrambled to supreme power. but lesser men like constantine the great broke the system so that his sons could go on fighting amongst themselves when he died and squandering the empire's resources.

[Marshal Murat]

Where do I begin?
Hannibal Barca
Julius Caesar
Frederick II, "the Great"
Gustavs Adolphus
Stephan Bathory
George Washington
Benedict Arnold
Lee
Grant
Cromwell (maybe, I'm still debating that one)
Rommel
Gustav Mannerheim
Zhukov
Patton
MacArthur

[Slartibardfast]

I don't see what's so fantastic about Robert de Brus. He won one battle, which proved to be inconsequential.
One that kicked the English out of Scotland, securing the kingdom and his throne for himself and his decendants to eventually become the first Kings of the United Kingdom of Great Britian, ie:James VIth Scotland/Ist England.

Wonder what would of happened if The Battle of Stirling had of been a consequential victory?

Edit: Sorry, Ive ended up parahrasing King of Atlantis brilliant defence of de Brus before reading all the other new posts. When someone writes off your Humpty Dumpty line of ancestry you tend to step in first. Probably because the Stewart line eventually lost in the end,....never could hold our drink.

[The Wizard]

Far too many, but the following probably stand out:

Epaminondas
Marcus Aurelius
Chinggis Khan
Babur
Akbar the Great
Cyrus the Great
Ali ibn Abi Talib
Heraklios
Khusrau Anushirvan ("Chosroes I")
Theodor Herzl
Ze'ev Yabotinsky
Golda Meir
Dawid Ben Gurion
Moshe Dayan
Ariel Sharon
Eliezer Ben Yehuda

The first nine were wise and magnanimous rulers (though Heraklios' reign was marred by his indecisiveness during the Muslim explosion from Arabia, and Khusrau was extremely repressive concerning Mazdakism), while the last men (only one woman ~;p) gave my people back its dignity. :bow:

Strange to see how large a portion of my list is taken up by despots. They were wise and intelligent, even philosophers, yes -- but they lived slept steeped in marble, and didn't mind hacking off a head or two, either. Ah well, it was about interesting characters, not righteous ones ~D

[King Henry V]

Mahatma Gandhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi) seems to have been rather a decent sort, and most impressively contrived to bring down an empire that had been in place for the better part of two centuries by non-violent means. Possibly a 'passive resistance' Totalwar game would be a good seller. I mean, at the end of the day, no one really thinks imperialism is a good idea, do they? Passive resistance/ anti-imperialism Totalwar would have a 'feel good' factor that's absent when you realise that you just laid waste the entire Iberian peninsula and a large part of modern-day France. All that rich cultural diversity gone, all that senseless violence and chaos...
If anyone made a game like that, they wouldn't even be able to give it away. Peace and love is boring. Death, blood and guts is fun.

[Csargo]

Oh I forgot to mention Jesus

[Kralizec]

In no particular order:

Perikles
Plato
Demothenes
Alexander the Great
Pyrhus of Epirus
Archimedes
Hannibal Barca
Antiochus III
Cicero
Heraclius
Justinian
Erasmus
William of Orange-Nassau
Michiel de Ruyter
Einstein

[KrooK]

Hetman Jan Karol count Chodkiewicz - one of greates commanders of XVII century. He won battle even after his death.
In 1621 he stopped all ottoman empire at Chocim.

[Innocentius]

Hetman Jan Karol count Chodkiewicz - one of greates commanders of XVII century. He won battle even after his death.
In 1621 he stopped all ottoman empire at Chocim.

I'm no expert but: XVII = 1700?

[Adrian II]

All those military leaders are totally irrelevant, some are interesting, most are plain boring, their 'genius' being due to a goddess named Fortune and their throat-slashing being inconsequential. As far as military leaders go, Napoleon or Eisenhower at least qualify as truly great men in that their victories intentionally helped the spread of ideas and institutions that are of benefit to mankind.

My choice would be Galileo Galilei. His work marked the beginning of the end of the role of science as the handmaiden of theology. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Alexander.

[Kralizec]

All those military leaders are totally irrelevant, some are interesting, most are plain boring, their 'genius' being due to a goddess named Fortune and their throat-slashing being inconsequential. As far as military leaders go, Napoleon or Eisenhower at least qualify as truly great men in that their victories intentionally helped the spread of ideas and institutions that are of benefit to mankind.

Then again, this is about favourites, not the best ones.
Personally I didn't put Napoleon up there because of his military achievements (though they are impressive) but because of his code civil and his statemanship.

Alexander would pwn Eisenhower in a fair fight- that is to say, both sides are armed only with horses and long wooden sticks. Guns, pfff :thumbsdown:

[Adrian II]

Then again, this is about favourites, not the best ones.Sure, and I told you who my favourite is, and why.

As for fighting on horseback with long wooden sticks, I know a Dutch Marine who grew up as a farmer's son and who would crush poor Alex and his horse before you can say "Gaugamela".
:yes:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Alexander would pwn Eisenhower in a fair fight- that is to say, both sides are armed only with horses and long wooden sticks. Guns, pfff :thumbsdown:

Not sure I agree. Alexander faced a larger army with less effective technology and less expertise than his, gathered from a dozen different cultures, but with plentiful resources at their disposal. Actually, that sounds like the army Ike took to victory in Europe. A great tactician - no. A cutting edge strategist - no. But Ike had the testicular fortitude to make a decision and follow it through and was a great coalition manager. Ike would have been a tougher opponent for Alex than Dariush ever was.

[Adrian II]

Not sure I agree. Alexander faced a larger army with less effective technology and less expertise than his, gathered from a dozen different cultures, but with plentiful resources at their disposal. Actually, that sounds like the army Ike took to victory in Europe. A great tactician - no. A cutting edge strategist - no. But Ike had the testicular fortitude to make a decision and follow it through and was a great coalition manager. Ike would have been a tougher opponent for Alex than Dariush ever was.It is amazing, isn't it, that Eisenhower never fired a shot in anger throughout his entire military career? He came from a family of pacifists (Jehovah's Witnesses) and yet he oversaw the Axis capitulation in Northern Africa, the invasions of Sicily, the Italian mainland and France, and, finally, the capitulation of Germany.

His military achievements, due more to his patience, dogged perseverance and systematic mind than any sort of brilliance, far outweigh his political achievements. He was merely a caretaker-President, and not a very good one at that.

Goes to show, doesn't it, that it is really impossible to compare the 'greats' of different ages, let alone those engaged in very different pursuits. The reason why I chose Galileo is that, in the end, ideas move the world.

[King Henry V]

I'm no expert but: XVII = 1700?
XVIIth century = 1600s.

[Innocentius]

XVIIth century = 1600s.

Always forget that one:embarassed: In swedish 1700 means 1700:clown:

[yesdachi]

Tokugawa Ieyasu and Hattori Hanzo.

If you haven’t heard of it I would recommend “Path of the Assassin” it is the story of Hattori Hanzo, the fabled master ninja whose duty it was to protect Tokugawa Ieyasu. Done by the same team that did Loan Wolf and Cub. The story shows Tokugawa in the uncommon light of a teenager, inexperienced in worldly matters and how he matures with own personal ninja protector who happens to be 1 year younger than the 16 year old Takugawa. Japanese history is fascinating to me and the books by Kazuo Koike and Goseki Kojima tell stories soooo well.

[Conradus]

Goes to show, doesn't it, that it is really impossible to compare the 'greats' of different ages, let alone those engaged in very different pursuits. The reason why I chose Galileo is that, in the end, ideas move the world.

One could argue that Alexander had some ideas that moved the world too. At least he held on to his 'principles' while Galileo had to renounce his own theories in order to survive the Inquisition. I'd take Copernicus above Galileo though. But you're right, 1) they're personal favourites 2) most of them can't be compared.

[Adrian II]

One could argue that Alexander had some ideas that moved the world too. At least he held on to his 'principles' while Galileo had to renounce his own theories in order to survive the Inquisition. I'd take Copernicus above Galileo though. But you're right, 1) they're personal favourites 2) most of them can't be compared.Fair enough, though we can not be sure Kopernik would have held up under the same pressure. Kopernik's work had been considered harmless by the church because it was not grounded in experiment. Galileo's work was. His tribunal was sort of a 'last stand' on the part of the church, which had even become internally divided on the issue of heliocentrism at the time, thanks to the writings of the very same man. And let us not forget that Galileo had already defied the church on several occasions and even insulted the Pope in writing before the tribunal was convened. He was not lacking in courage.

At the end of it, Galileo is said to have muttered "Eppur si muove..." ("And yet, she moves", meaning the earth), although that story is probably apocryphal. My personal impression is that Galileo knew his views would triumph in spite of the silly cardinals' circus, and for that reason refused to make the final sacrifice. It was just not worth it. He went on to live under house arrest where he wrote his finest book, Two new Sciences, in which he unified his views in such a way that they deeply influenced Newton and many others after him.

[nokhor]

i have never understood people claiming eisenhower's great diplomatic ability. he basically led the 'west'. he had no influence on the eastern front. and he led the 'west' with western values, a grouping of similar ethnicities, democracies and culture against arguably the most evil regime ever. it doesn't take a talleyrand to get that accomplished. i mean it wasn't like he had to say lead china, egypt and armenia against peru.

[King Henry V]

Eisenhower did have to deal with some pretty brash and preening generals who all wanted to be first without much hurting any feelings. His skills layed primarily in logistics and strategy rather than on the ground tactics.

[Slartibardfast]

Dawid Ben Gurion
Moshe Dayan

Isn't perspective everything. Within the worlds multiple shades of grey, one mans villian can be anothers hero.

My grandfather was a 3rd generation immigrant of German jewish decent. His grandfather changed his surname and emigrated to Australia to get away from what he considered the growing militant poison of Zionism within his family and his local jewish community in Germany. During WW2 my grandfathers 2AIF unit was stationed in Palestine for several months and, from his and the Australian governments perspective, was getting shot at by foreign terrorists whilst trying to keep the peace there before moving on to drive the fascist Italians out of North Africa and eventually liberate occupied Europe.

You listed a couple of the WW2 foriegn terrorists who shot at, and co-ordinated the bombing campaign and the shooting at, my grandfather and his mates. From my grandfathers perspective their demonstrated terrorists actions had showed they had essentially allied themselves militarily with the war machine of the European fascist.
"..and still yet from over here it looks like........"

Funny thing history aint' it.

Basileus,nice too see another old fart in the forums.

[SCRIBE]

Wasn't Rommel against Hitler and his crazy ideas?
He was considered the last knight if you didnt know.
i dont know too much of him, but he sounds interesting.

And wasnt Ivan the terrible responsible for taking out what remained of the mongols in russia? And he liked throwing kittens and puppies from his bedroom window when he was a kid...wow ~:eek:

But heres my list of favourite historical figures:

- Datu Lapu, killed Magellan and was the first to resist the Spanish 'conquistadors'
- Jose Rizal, 1 heck of a writer/poet/doctor...a jack of all trades, inspired Filipinos to know the tyranny of Spanish colonization and to raise awareness of the Filipino people's plight, read 'Noli Me Tangere' and "El Filibusterismo"
- Andres Bonifacio, the Great Plebian, leader/founder of the secret revolutionary group , the Katipunan, to fight against the Spanish oppressors, a self made man for real, self educated
- Martin Luther King Jr. pretty self explanatory there..."Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"
- Saladin, very interesting guy, an honourable man too, very chivilirous, i.e. he returned the kidnapped child of a Frankish woman whos baby has been kidnapped when the citadel was being sieged when the woman ran to his camp
- Pierre Trudeau, very charismatic PM of Canada, very open to new ideas when he became PM back then
- El Cid, another chivilrous man, didnt side with the Castillians or the Moors
- Jesus, me and Jesus are like this: (fingers crossed)
- Buddha, ENLIGHTENMENT!
- Genghis Khan, a very intriguing individual, united the wartorn downtrodden tribes into a great empire, but he was a pretty ruthless guy
- Henry David Thoreau
- Constantine the Great
- Belisarius, the great general under Roman Emperor Justinian
- F. Scott Fitzgerald, a good author
- Julius Caesar
- Severus Alexander, another underated Roman Emperor
- Septimius L. Severus, Roman Emperor
- Constantine XI Palaiologos, the last Roman Emperor
- Basil II
- Sun Tzu
- Mahatma Gandhi
- Nelson Mandela!!!
- Justinian I
- Chaka Zulu
- Hannibal
- Scipio Africanus
- Atilla the Hun
- William Shakespeare
...too many to name...

[Innocentius]

- Saladin, very interesting guy, an honourable man too, very chivilirous, i.e. he returned the kidnapped child of a Frankish woman whos baby has been kidnapped when the citadel was being sieged when the woman ran to his camp


That sounds like 100% medieval propaganda to me:juggle2:

[Meneldil]

Napoléon anyone ?
And no, I'm not biased because he was French :idea2:
He's by far my favorite historical figure

#2 would be Julius Caesar or Genghis Khan

[Adrian II]

That sounds like 100% medieval propaganda to me:juggle2: :yes: :laugh4:

[The Wizard]

You listed a couple of the WW2 foriegn terrorists who shot at, and co-ordinated the bombing campaign and the shooting at, my grandfather and his mates. From my grandfathers perspective their demonstrated terrorists actions had showed they had essentially allied themselves militarily with the war machine of the European fascist.

I don't agree.

As you may know, the Zionist creed was anything but universally accepted or supported by Jews before we and our people opened our eyes to the truth and saw what had happened to us in the shoah. We did, and we do (like now ~;)), like nothing more than a good bout of discussion and debate up in our shtetls and ghettos.

Your grandfather experienced the attacks and implacability of a small and very radical section of Zionism, namely the organization Irgun, which also campaigned for a Greater Israel and other such (not so) funny aspirations. By no means does this represent the Zionist movement at large, for your grandfather forgot to tell you the fact that the Haganah (the "secret" army from which Irgun had split off, and from which Tsahal sprung forth) cooperated with the British as the Afrika Korps advanced towards Cairo and nearer towards the Palestinian Mandate.

But to label Irgun as in alliance with the fascists? You, and your grandfather, are taking it a step or two too far. Irgun may have been a terrorist organization with methods and ideals which are unacceptable to me, personally, but they were consequent, at the very least. They despised the people whom they knew were murdering Jews in droves as much as they despised the colonial forces present in a land they viewed as rightfully their own.

And it is but for the rule that politics stay in the Backroom, or I'd have a thing or two to say about British rule in Palestine and the Middle East at large... :whip:

Just out of curiosity: what was your father? Rabbinic, Orthodox, "Messianic" (the Zionists are taking into human hands what only God can accomplish... enfin, you know the drill), etc ...?

[IrishArmenian]

It is amazing, isn't it, that Eisenhower never fired a shot in anger throughout his entire military career? He came from a family of pacifists (Jehovah's Witnesses) and yet he oversaw the Axis capitulation in Northern Africa, the invasions of Sicily, the Italian mainland and France, and, finally, the capitulation of Germany.

His military achievements, due more to his patience, dogged perseverance and systematic mind than any sort of brilliance, far outweigh his political achievements. He was merely a caretaker-President, and not a very good one at that.

Goes to show, doesn't it, that it is really impossible to compare the 'greats' of different ages, let alone those engaged in very different pursuits. The reason why I chose Galileo is that, in the end, ideas move the world.
I thought Eisenhower was a Mennonite. Pacifists, yes, but not Jehova's Witnesses.

[Adrian II]

I thought Eisenhower was a Mennonite. Pacifists, yes, but not Jehova's Witnesses.His family were Jehova's Witnesses. Ike himself became a Presbyterian during his Presidency.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

i have never understood people claiming eisenhower's great diplomatic ability. he basically led the 'west'. he had no influence on the eastern front. and he led the 'west' with western values, a grouping of similar ethnicities, democracies and culture against arguably the most evil regime ever. it doesn't take a talleyrand to get that accomplished. i mean it wasn't like he had to say lead china, egypt and armenia against peru.

Balancing interactions/efforts with De Gaulle, Churchill, Patton, Montgomery, Mountbatten, Marshall, King, et.al. was most assuredly an exercise in diplomacy. The Broad Front strategy that was so damaging to the Germans was his concept as well (admittedly its impact was designed to maximize resource attrition when he knew he could outproduce the Germans, not a rocket science idea). As a tactician, we'll never know -- he wasn't tested.

His diplomacy as POTUS, though dominated by the Cold War, was fairly effective. He oversaw a period of development and prosperity in the US that was stunning in its way. Some think of him as a "caretaker" others suggest that he ran the Presidency so well that no one noticed him.

[Slartibardfast]

Just out of curiosity: what was your father? Rabbinic, Orthodox, "Messianic" (the Zionists are taking into human hands what only God can accomplish... enfin, you know the drill), etc ...?
No problem with you disagreeing with me, thats the timeless beauty of the various shades of grey in pionts of perspective I was referring to, and yes I do know the basic drill about the various sects of Judasim. Thanks too for the reply, you filled in some blanks in my own knowlege, which is for me the best part about these forums. The mantenance of ignorance is one of the ways greedy bastards have always used to manipulate we normal people into fighting their wars for them.

My grandfathers been dead for nearly 20 years. I was pionting out his perspective of the war as he passed on to me before he died. (He also handed me Spike Milligans collection of books when asking what the war was like, saying "Exactly like this." ) The majority of 2AIF WW2 veterans are now dead. His grandfather was apparently so disgusted by the demented ravings of his brother, one of founders of the Zionist movement in Germany, (probably something about Moses passing on the commandment to not covet thy neighbors ox), that he converted to Roman Cathstolisism on his marriage in Australia. Myself I'm firmly entrenched in the Arian Heresy so I'm what the church calls a paegan.(This did make christian docrine classes at school more interesting though.)

From memory each of the disparate groups that eventually coalesed into forming Likud were all listed as terrorist organizations by the British Crown at some point during WW2.

This is my opinion only but it seemed Ben Gurin et al edorsed the violent invasion and take over of Palestine from the recognised governing power and the majority of its inhabitants (85% of the Palestinian mandate were moslem arabs, most decended from the 5th century CE jewish population who, just like the jewish tribe that provided the military muscle for Mohamads power grab in Mecca, had willingly converted to Islam) in order to create a jewish state for European jews, and was prepared to go to any means to achieve this goal. After a meeting between Ben Gurin and Mountbatten shortly after the conclusion of WW2, Ben Gurin meet the awaiting world press core saying Mountbatten had given assurances that the British Crown would ensure the creation of a Jewish state in the middle east. This was a bald faced lie, and I am however very anti-lieing warmongering sociopathic bastard and Ben Gurin, like most present world leaders, my own present slimy toad of a Prime Minister includeed, and 1 in 250 people, fits the text book profile of a sociopath.

This does not diminish that he was the founding father of the modern state of Isreal or diminish the reverence Israelis hold for him as such. I cant think of a single historical country in that wasn't founded by one.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

My Favortie Historcal Figure has to be Genghis Khan. I read up on him lately, and like many of his Things he did..

[Incongruous]

Heraclius.
A man so steeped in tragedy, he warrants his own Shakespear play.
After his epic campaign against Sassanid Persia which lead to its demise, he was forced to come to terms with the arrival of the unstoppable Arab hordes.
I belive it was it was at Yarmuck where the Christian East was forever detroyed, Jerusaleum so newly re-taken, once agin slipped out of Christian hands.

It alwasy brings a tear to my eye. It's all so forlorn.

P.s Heraclius is said to have been the first "crusader".

[The Wizard]

Heraclius the first Crusader? Christian Roman emperors had been fighting the fundamentalist Zoroastrian Sassanid Persia for centuries by the time Heraclius came looking 'round the corner.

And even then, the term 'crusader' is purely used by extension. In no way did Byzantine warfare against Constantinople's many enemies, the greatest of which were religious as well as purely political, match the concept of a crusade -- even though it was steeped deeply in Christianity (see the akritoi marchermen for that).


it seemed Ben Gurin ... was prepared to go to any means to achieve this goal.

You mention a "recognized governing power". Recognized -- by whom? The League of Nations, a useless and perfidious "international" organization that was really an excuse for Western countries to expand their imperialist activities. The League of Nations was the channel through which the Middle East, too, was cut up like pie, like Africa before it.

That said, I disagree with Ben Gurion and many other Zionists (such as Ze'ev Yabotinsky) that there can be no resolution of the conflict with the Arabs (who call themselves "Palestinians", after the British colonial name, inspired by the Romans, of the region -- which theretofore had not been in existence for 1300 years). We are, after all, of the same blood, the story of Abraham allegorical if not true. We speak languages so similar we can almost understand each other. How could we not come back together? The present conflict is nothing but the result of the machinations of powermongers such as European imperialists, Pan-Arabist/-Islamist dictators, and, yes, deranged Zionists like those of Irgun -- all of whom abuse the ignorance of the general populace. The solution lies in education, not war, not revolution, nothing to do with bloodshed at all.

Sorry, moderators, if I politicized this debate (how can you not, almost, with this as subject?), and if so I shall cease immediately.

[Kralizec]

Well, the foremost purpose of Heraclious campaign (or at least, the official one) was the recovery of the True Cross of Christ and the holy city Jerusalem. There'd been wars with the Persians before, but none before were as tinted with religious fanaticism. A parallel with the crusades is easy to make.

[Slartibardfast]

You mention a "recognized governing power". Recognized ......... The solution lies in education, not war, not revolution, nothing to do with bloodshed at all.
Can't argue with any of that cause most of its pretty spot on. Lets hope education wins through, we get some decent world leaders and the Holy Land finally gets some peace after the last 5000 years.

[Incongruous]

Heraclius the first Crusader? Christian Roman emperors had been fighting the fundamentalist Zoroastrian Sassanid Persia for centuries by the time Heraclius came looking 'round the corner.

And even then, the term 'crusader' is purely used by extension. In no way did Byzantine warfare against Constantinople's many enemies, the greatest of which were religious as well as purely political, match the concept of a crusade -- even though it was steeped deeply in Christianity (see the akritoi marchermen for that).

Well I am only repeating what many historians, Including John Julius Norwich have said.
Heraclius' campaign was increadibly religous, no other Byzantine campaign (until the crusades) could compare with it.

[Kralizec]

Well I am only repeating what many historians, Including John Julius Norwich have said.
Heraclius' campaign was increadibly religous, no other Byzantine campaign (until the crusades) could compare with it.

I almost bought a book of his on the Byzantine empire. How would you rate him?

[SCRIBE]

That sounds like 100% medieval propaganda to me:juggle2:

Well, I have read many sources and articles of his many deeds, and not all of the praise for Saladin was made by Muslim writers but by Christian writers as well. And from both of the warring sides during the Crusades, Saladin was a really chivalrous guy. i.e. Instead of slaughtering every Christian in his retake of Jerusalem, he gave everyone safe passage back into Christian lands. Unlike what the Crusaders did over a 100 years back (slaughtered everyone, Jews, Muslims and Christians alike) he garnered admiration and respect from all his friends and enemies, as his legacy was retold many times over.
When I was watching the History Channel, a year back, in a show called "The Crusades" hosted by the guy in Month Python's Holy Grail, some Muslims don't consider Saladin to be that popular a figure, instead they put Baibars, a Mameluke general turned Sultan, to be a popular hero. He was quite a ruthless bloke, massacres here and destruction of holy sites there. The Christian adversaries didnt like him for that because of his violent nature.
Saldin had his violent side shown, especially in the Horn of Hattin battle. Of course, would'nt you be furious when your sister was killed during a peaceful caravan trip?

But much respect to Saladin on the other hand...:egypt:

A good book I read that contained the major figures during the Medieval Age, like Saladin, is in a book called "The Chronicles of the Crusades", forgot the authors' name. Its a really good read, I spent more hours reading that book instead of my university readings!!!

An interesting historical figure nonetheless.
:2thumbsup: to Saladin.
Also :2thumbsup: to Marcus Aurelius, forgot about him.

"When you feel sluggish in getting up in the morning, keep this in thought, i am rising up to a man's work..."
- Marcus Aurelius, the Meditations

[SCRIBE]

And wasnt Ivan the terrible responsible for taking out what remained of the mongols in russia? And he liked throwing kittens and puppies from his bedroom window when he was a kid...wow ~:eek:

I was reading up on him on Wikipedia, it wasnt Ivan the Terrible who did that. It was Ivan III Vasilevech(Mind the spelling). Ivan the terrible was Ivan IV, I just got their numbers wrong.

It'll talk about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_III_of_Russia

[Rodion Romanovich]

A few favorite philosophers and scientists (even though some of their theories contain errors they're above all great for pointing out the ridiculous errors made by their predecessors in their fields):
- Aristotle
- Sun Tzu
- Machiavelli
- Freud
- Darwin
- Newton
- Luther

[IrishArmenian]

Ivan the Terrible didn't like ethnic cleansing. Then he could only kill certain nationalities. In his eyes, everyone was a tratiorous worm that he could crush. He did just that, killing everyone whom he thought was a threat to his rule.

[IrishArmenian]

His family were Jehova's Witnesses. Ike himself became a Presbyterian during his Presidency.
I had no idea.

[Adrian II]

I had no idea.There is some interesting 'early' stuff on the Eisenhower Library website, including biographical details and letters from young Ike to his family.

[IrishArmenian]

Honestly, for me the religions of U.S. presidents is not something I would honestly research for fun. It was meant in the tone of "Learn something new every day."

[Emperor Aurelius]

I love many peoople from history.
One is Emperor Constantine XIII, the last emperor of Byzantium. He died fighting to the death alongside his fellow Christians in the defense of Constantinople against the Turkish invasion.

[Lorenzo_H]

Wellington, Churchill and Jesus Christ.

[nokhor]

i believe you are right when you say that coordination de gaulle, churchill etc was an exercise in diplomacy, but that is what is expected of any commander of an allied army. schwarzenberg had to do the same when the allies were pushing napoleon back into france after leipzig, but i never hear anyone critique him as this great war leader who kept the anti-napoleonic campaign going. it's par for the course and that any allied commander would keep the allies united and focused on the goal. so i see no great ability that eisenhower had over other allied supreme commanders say such as schwarzenberg or wallenstein or even hindenberg/ludendorf. yet i often see him praised for his great diplomatic skill.

in terms of Ike's strategic, tactical or logistical ability or even his diplomatic ability as a civilian, i have nothing to say because i know very little about it. but purely on his diplomatic ability as an allied military commander, he seems to be put up on a pedestal. at least in my estimation.



Balancing interactions/efforts with De Gaulle, Churchill, Patton, Montgomery, Mountbatten, Marshall, King, et.al. was most assuredly an exercise in diplomacy. The Broad Front strategy that was so damaging to the Germans was his concept as well (admittedly its impact was designed to maximize resource attrition when he knew he could outproduce the Germans, not a rocket science idea). As a tactician, we'll never know -- he wasn't tested.

His diplomacy as POTUS, though dominated by the Cold War, was fairly effective. He oversaw a period of development and prosperity in the US that was stunning in its way. Some think of him as a "caretaker" others suggest that he ran the Presidency so well that no one noticed him.

[Mount Suribachi]

Oliver Cromwell. Such a fascinating mish-mash of ideas, beliefs, greatness and character flaws.

[Avicenna]

Point.



-A man who murderd 50.000.000 people with his decisions

If people stopped him those people would not have died. Suddenly Britain, France, the UK and the Sov union are nice boys, even though they gave hitler what he wanted.


-A man who did not have any military knowlidge and yet he has led millions of German soldiers to pointless battles in wich many perrished

They weren't pointless. He made it very clear the objective was for a domination of Europe by the 1000 year reich. He just failed. Anyway, how can someone who was formerly in the army have no military knowledge?


-A man who was before war an artist

Only a "lowest of psycopaths" can be an artist before 1939? Interesting.


-A man who is a sinonim for a devil himself

Check the thesaurus buddy.


-A man who ordered his troops to fight to the last man and then, shamefully took his own life

How is that shameful?


-A man who enjoyed his peacefull life when millions have suffered

Do you know that constant assassination attempts leads to a less-than-peaceful life?


-A man who had in army only a rank of cooporal( like our ******* comrade Tito)

If DA sees this, you can start ordering a funeral.


And at the end, I think that only the lowest of psychopats could do such things.

And at the end, you used 'and' at the start of a sentence, as well as finding out over half of what you said is wrong. :no:






Robert E. Lee A good commander and seemingly moral one.
How is fighting for slavery anything close to resembling morality?



you don't see blatant racism as often
Suuuuuure.


Unemployment: is it really a big thing to let tens of thousands of people work to build Autobahnen?
Yes.

You live in an age of prosperity compared to the 1930s. There's also scientific proof for the mind 'idealising' the times of when it was young. This symptom is not rare. It happens to all brains. What I'm saying is that your elders probably recall the Germany of 1930s to be better than it was. Also, as a man, it's plain humiliating to have no job. You feel like a worthless cockroach. By the way.. food costs money. Without money, your whole family will starve. Something must be done.

[IrishArmenian]

Lee didn't fight for slavery. He fought for his home state. I think it was Virginia. It was said that he was very noble and honourable person, even to his enemies.
Tiberius, I think you are kind of overreacting to people's dislike of Hitler. If you talk to someone who lived through the Holocaust, they will probably say that Hitler was the devil. How could a sane man try to kill of a race of people?
I always viewed suicide as a shameful and cowardly thing to do. (Except for the Japanese himiko I think it was called, that was to preserve honour)

[Avicenna]

Seppuku.
Do you know how much shame he would get if captured by the Allies?

Anyway, his home state was pro slavery, so whether you like it or not, Lee did fight for slavery as that was what the Confederates wanted.

[Julian the apostate]

yay first post in the monestary
great point tiberious bout Neville Chamberlain and his likes in pre 1939 politics
"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time" -Neville (brilliant appease hitler)


on Lee though, i've heard different stories some that he beat his slaves at some point others that he experienced only the best of slavery and thus didn't understand the worst of the deep south and some like this quote
"In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country." -Lee
none the less he was a man of moderation which i respect, a tough man who almost took command of the union army until virginia succedded. he was far before his time tactically even though pickets charge was a disaster (hubris at its worst)

i'm going to add 3 more
heisenberg, stevin hawking and nicola Tesla :2thumbsup:

[AntiochusIII]

stevin hawkingHe's, err, alive.

No need to make him history yet. ~D

[Mount Suribachi]

Lee wanted Slavery abolished, but he had a rather contradictory view of it. He believed that God would abolish it, in his own way, in due course. But having slavery outlawed by the central goverment did not fit his view of how God would accomplish it. In this he is rather like the story of the man trapped by floods who prays to God to save him. When a rescue helicopter shows up, he waves it away shouting "God is going to save me".....

Many Americans today still argue the case for the Confederates, not because they support slavery, but because they support the rights of the states over the Federal Government. I think they're wrong to do so on this issue, because slavery was (and is) such a moral evil that it over-rides any arguments about State rights, but it illustrates the point.

[yesdachi]

He's, err, alive.

No need to make him history yet. ~D
The only reason I have left out Chuck Norris.

[Kralizec]

Tiberius, are you making a case for Hitler as the (one of the) most interesting historical figure(s), or do think he actually was a great statesman? The former I can understand, the second is just beyond me...

[Incongruous]

I almost bought a book of his on the Byzantine empire. How would you rate him?

I would give him five out of five. He is a joy to read and also quite informative but not to the point of utter boredom.

[Incongruous]

Yes umm, Tiberius , what are you trying to get at here? Hitler was a madman, do you suspect otherwise? I can understand him being a point of interest but not admiration. He brought his fellow men nothing but death.

[Csargo]

Anyway, his home state was pro slavery, so whether you like it or not, Lee did fight for slavery as that was what the Confederates wanted.

Just because he fought for the Confederates doesn't make him pro-slavery. He fought for his country and did what he thought was right. Just because your a confederate doesn't mean your a slave driver does it? Just because someone is American does that make them a fat slob?

[Adrian II]

Just because he fought for the Confederates doesn't make him pro-slavery.Even if Lee had not been pro-slavery, his stance invites nasty comparisons with Hitler's generals, intent on defending the Reich at all costs and in spite of the unrivalled evil which it represented.

But then he was pro-slavery. You must be aware of Lee's views on the subject. There is the well-known letter to his wife from December 27, 1856, in which he wrote:


"In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."Lee "owned" over sixty slaves himself and like other slave owners he had them whipped and abused. There is even a 1866 testimony from one of his former slaves, Wesley Norris, to this effect.

Any balanced judgment of Robert E. Lee should take this aspect into account.

[Julian the apostate]

i guess its a little ironic that both army commanders at the end of the war were slave owners: Lee and Grant (a wedding present). plus the emmancipation was only for regions currently rebelling and not for slave states still within the Union. its amazing with the weapons of both sides. it is still the worst war america has entered from the point of casualties (albiet when both sides are american it increases the numbes a bit)