Im sorry... but What the fuck?Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus
Printable View
Im sorry... but What the fuck?Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus
Well, Caesar went to war with out the authority of the legislature, So did bush. (congress didn't declare war in Iraq, remember?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaivs
Caesar assumed Dictatorial powers, So did Bush (PATRIOT ACT anyone?)
Caesar expanded the Bureaucracy of the Republic, and Bush increased Bureaucracy in our Republic (Halliburton, Tax Cuts for the rich, Eminent Domain, etc.)
Lee once described McClellan as a good but cautious officer. That is a bit of an understatement. At one point McClellan had actually obtained (through luck) a copy of Lee's campaign plan, and recognized it for what it was, yet still managed to lose by dithering to advance. I understand McClellan was terrified by what might be happening out of his sight. He regularly imagined the enemy had far more troops than in reality and as a result wasted the initiative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Richard Lionheart was the Richard the first. The second and third Richard's both were dethroned and (according to Terry Jones) character-assassinated by their successors. Back to the first, however, he was killed by a crossbow when he incautiously approached a hostile building. However, according to Osprey it's probably a myth that he introduced the crossbow to France. Still, I think he should be included in this list. He extracted several fortunes of cash out of England and wasted them on crusade, ransom and a big castle in Normandy, but failed to accomplish anything lasting (apart from his name being enshrined as a romantic hero instead of the bloody rapist that he was).Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk
And as for Napoleon, right. I mean, all he did was to reinvent military tactics, conquer half of Europe and an infuse the rest with a nationalistic and revolutionary spirit that is only just now abating. He clearly was pathetic.
No contemporary politics, pleaseQuote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus
:oops:~:doh::stupid:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dominique
He didn´t have "taste" at all, he climbed on any woman in the neighbourhood that he got his hands on.
"In the dark all cats are grey."
I'm sorry, how is someone's sexuality relevant to whether they are pathetic or not? I would be careful what you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk
Foot
I believe the quote "Tous les chat sont gris dans la nuit", is probably a very old French saying attributable to anon, but in history it was attributed to Louis-Philip, Louis XV's regent who was notoriously unfussy about his bed mates.
Celtic Punk: Henry V (I presume you mean the english one) the last king to lead his forces into battle? Outrageous. I could cite numerous examples proving otherwise, but for now I shall only ask how exactly Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden (man his english name sounds shitty) managed to get killed while leading a cavalry charge? Besides, what do you expect of a king, to stand in the frontline exposed to musketfire and almost certainly get killed? That´s a great way to improve your soldiers morale.
Also, what´s this with flaming homo´s? I agree with Foot, how does that make them pathetic. If you find being a homo pathetic then I would argue that it is you who is pathetic.
O Damn! Did he just say dat?? :laugh4::laugh3:~:eek:Quote:
If you find being a homo pathetic then I would argue that it is you who is pathetic.
Ah yes, well an American Caesar is a book. :shrug:
I was speaking about English Kings, and i never said being homosexual was pathetic, but when it comes to Edward it was part of his downfall. Plus in that age it was considered terrible to be gay. Most English Kings who happened to be poofters weren't the strongest of kings. A king might not beable to lead from the front, but what about General Wolfe (yes he's no king duh) but he was killed right by the lines, and Tecumseh was killed leading his men, sabre drawn. If a king had the balls to do that back then, they'd get alot moreQuote:
Originally Posted by General Appo
than just respect and admiration.
EDIT: trying to hide your sexual preferences generally takes you away from important matters such as ruling your country.
Tell me one King who excelled in most areas of kingship who happened to be gay (no challenge or w/e, id like to know if there was a good Gay English king) Hadrian was a pretty good emperor, and he was a bit of a poof. so that doesnt mean much, but medieval times it seems to be to their downfall
I think Richard the Lionheart is getting unfairly slammed here. First off I don't believe he was Gay, though even if he was that's irrelevant. Secondly it's unfair to say he acomplished little. In the Holy Land he broke Saladin's power at Jaffa, of all places, and he did it with his reputation rather than force of arms. He did well in France as well. I think that with all these Mediaeval characters it's important to try to appreciate the world in which they lived. Politically it was a dog-eat-dog world and the fact that England was still powerful after Richard died and that he was not dethroned is praiseworthy in itself. Added to that it's easy now to forget the religious aspect of Crusade and the fact that Richard was required to make strategic decisions with a Council and only had direct command in battle. Despite this he managed to halt Saladin with only a relatively small army at his disposal.
That he gets slammed with Henry V is lauded in this thread is franklu beyond me.
Henry VIII likewise was no failure, he stood up to the other European powers and the Pope and kept his crown, he increased the power of the monarchy and he eventually produced an heir, though no spare.
Quintus Sertorius was in a league with Hannibal as far as generalship went, if no better given that no oman general beat him. Even in defeat as a traitor he was still respected.
Absolutely. If people think Sertorius should be in this list, then Pompey most definitely should be, considering Sertorius beat him time and again. He only ever won against non-entity eastern generals and Roman traitors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
You've got a point about Richard Lionheart. On the other hand, he may have defeated Saladin, but he failed in his objective to restore the kingdom Jerusalem. Similarly, he held of the French, but accomplished no lasting victory. And in order to accomplish all this he extracted three king's ransoms out of England (first to go on crusade, then to ransom him from an insulted ex-crusader, and finally to build a new, state-of-the-art castle in France). One might say he was rather inefficient as monarchs go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I agree completely about Henry VIII and Quintus Sertorius, BTW.
I agree completely about Pompey. He was a good general but I never saw what made him Magnus. No better then Luculus I think. And against Sertorius the praise should go to Metellus Pius. I am not even gonna mention the battles against the Marians. They were utterly incompetent. He hungered for power but he reached for it at the worst possible moment- by confronting Caesar.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius
BTW I think I should nominate Carbo. He just didn't have what it took to lead the Marians against Sulla. he was their undeserved leader and he failed completely.
Well Richard's reign was cut short. He almost certainly would have gone back to the Holy Land and had he done so, taking what he had learned the last time with him, he would probably have done better. How much better we will never know. He's another one for the "What if" pile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
As to Magnus, great organiser and stratagist, but blinkered and only a respectable tactician. The suggestion that he wanted to sieze power is, I think, slander put about by Caesar. Let us not forget that Caesar was the rebel not Pompey and that Pompey had the backing of men like Cato and Cicero. He was also let down by his subordinates and as an Extraordinary Proconsul he was restricted by the will of the Consuls and Senate.
I meant that he could have reached for the dictatorship twice before that- at the peak of his glory and power, but he didn't. And it was no secret that he wanted to share power with no one and that is why he instigated the civil war with Caesar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
That is rubbish. There is no evidence Pompey wanted to be a dictator. There is a great deal of evidence he was frustrated with the Senate and the Republican system, such as his participation in the First Triumvirate but he used that arragement to secure land for his veterans and tellingly it broke down after that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matinius Brutus
Pray tell in what manner did he instigate War with Caesar? I recall a law passed which prevented candidates standing for office in absentia but that's all that comes to mind off hand. Caesar was the rebel, Caesar crossed the Rubicon, Caesar assumed the dictatorship for life.
Problem is Pompey was an average, pedestrian general, an absolutely brilliant organiser and administrator, and a political lightweight. Combine those with his directionless ambition and overweening pride and you've got a problematic brew.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus
ummm...
Trajan - Roosevelt
Diocletian - JFK
Constantine - Richard Nixon
Dubya - Romulus Augusulus
Pompey was the right man at the wrong time, or the wrong man at the right time. A lot has been made of his defeat at Pharsallus (nowhere near as crushing as it is made out to be) and his death in Egypt. Relatively little is said about his raising of his own Legions when he joined Sulla, or his fighting Sertorius to a standstill in Spain. Even less is made of the way in which Augustus emulated him as much as Caesar at the start of his carear.
As a general he was, I think, better than average but when he fought Caesar he seems to have suffered from chronic self doubt, which is probably what lost the Republic the war.
As a politician I believe the Roman opinion was that he was a poor speaker, rather than a bad operator.
Rubbish. By passing that law he presented Ceasar with a choice, march on Rome or face the courts and be exiled for ever, possible even worse. Unless he was an utter fool he must have known what Ceasar´s answer would be. True, Ceasar was the rebel, but Pompey (and let´s not forget Cato and the Senate) first forced him to become it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Don't be too harsh on Richard Cromwell. The Protectorate was a Military Junta, and Richard held no rank within it. He knew that, and so did the Major Generals. The downfall of the Protectorate and Commonwealth, and the demise of the Good Old Cause as a whole had more to do with their actions than any supposed ineptitude of Richard. To be honest the only way the Restoration could have been avoided would have been for Monck to pre-decease Cromwell, and for one of the aforementioned Generals rather than Richard to be appointed his successor. Either way, the chances of Cromwell leaving a genuine republican legacy would have been nill. If that stint of British history showed us anything, it's that Parliament - ergo any vestage of democracy - was better off under the Monarchy than the Military.Quote:
2 - Richard Cromwell.
Not exactly a character but the Carthaginian senate was one of the assemblies that behaved most pathetically in history... Honestly they remind me of RTW senate...
Why would he be exiled? Had he done anything wrong? Overstepped the bounds of his mandate maybe? Pompey actually placed an exception for Caesar into the law, which the Senate appear to have vetoed. May I remind you that a Consul does not make law, nor Veto it. Caesar was quite obviously aiming to become King of Rome, he was a Julian after all, and the Senate antagonised him, and they used Pompey to do it. Don't forget, Caesar could have returned earlier and been hailed as a hero. He didn't have to disobay the constitutional government. Caesar went against the Senate and hence against the City. Even after he won he wasn't able to change history enough to obscure his manifest guilt.Quote:
Originally Posted by General Appo
I'm not so certain he "fought Sertorius to a standstill" - he and Pius both lost repeatedly. Pompey made some really stupid mistakes, and was lucky to get away with it. Indeed were it not for the affection of his men, he wouldn't have managed to survive as long as he did in command.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Again yes he showed some initiative and more importantly organisational nous in raising and equipping his own men, and on the logistical side of things he was skillful. But in terms of tactical ability, he was nothing special. Sure he wasn't the sort to do anything stupid, but it's interesting that many of the clever little tactics he uses in the East are copies of ploys Sertorius fooled him with.
Well in the case of Pharsalus, unfortunately Pompey's politican shortcomings scuppered him there. He was saddled with a pack-load of armchair generals who didn't have a clue about real command, yet kept on harrassing him to fight when his decided strategy would have worked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
He wasn't simply a poor speaker, I don't think he was that canny an operator either. Years of being in sole command of an army without learning the vital skills of how to win people to your side and scheme will do that. It took alliance with two much slicker operators, Caesar and Crassus for him to achieve anything at Rome. He was wealthy, with a good name and reputation, but he really didn't know how to leverage them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
By this you mean the executive authority? Never really looked at it that way before? Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justiciar
That's true, but only in the first generation of inbreeding. If you repeat it generations after generations, the percentage raise uglily.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
In the case of Carlos II, his aunt was also his grandmother...
But god bless, his father, Felipe IV, spawned a bastard on a lowly andalusian actress, la Calderona, and this bastard, Don Juan Jose de Austria was everything his half-brother was not. A good general, a popular politician, charming and graceful, well a testament against inbreeding...
Cleopatra might have been ok, but the rest of the family was creepy. The late ptolemies are a showcase of pathos by themselves.
I'll second Ambrose Burnside... One word sums him up perfectly... Fredericksburg... Also George McClellan...
Assuming as we're allowed fictional characters... I'd nominate Starfleet's Fleet Admiral Cartwright... I mean, how did this racist, xenophobic asshole get to be one of the top brass? Easily one of Star Trek's most underrated slimeballs, he conspired with a Romulan ambassador and the Klingon General Chang to undermine what were perhaps the most important round of peace talks since the Organian peace treaty... Not only did this result in the death of a truely great man amongst Klingons (Chancellor Gorkon), but it nearly got the Enterprise destroyed and got Kirk and McCoy (two of Starfleet's most legendary personell) thrown into the worst hellhole imaginable... Not to mention that there would have been massive bloodshed had he succeded... He was even willing to kill his own president, and even sank so low as to hire his own personal brown-noser Colonel West to perform the hit!
And to top it all off, most of his concerns weren't even warrented! He complained about "the Star Fleet" supposedly being dismantled if these talks were to go ahead, but this was complete bull, as Starfleet's vessel's are, first and foremost, exploration vessels and as someone else pointed out, signing a peace treaty with the Klingons wasn't going to halt their exploration, not to mention the Federation would still need ships one hand to defend itself should something unexpected pop up...
What an asshole... Fleet Admiral Cartwright, surely the worst fictional character so far this thread... :thumbsdown:
Um, okay.
anyway, viz Pompey, I must admit I have a soft spot for him but I think he is often judged unfairly because he failed. As failures go his was, I feel, pretty good going.
The following may be a bit local, but the three danish kings Christian the 7th, his son Frederik the 6th and his successor Frederik the 7th who were, with the too successful to be included Christian the 8th, the last kings of Denmark to hold any power over the state, and three who must be mentioned and best together. Frederik the 7th who was the last of them was also the one to give up most of his and his successors´ royal rights and through his actions ( among others ) the first danish democracy was born.
First we have the grandfather of the three, Christian the 7th :
https://img172.imageshack.us/img172/...markbj7.th.jpg
Christian ( 1749-1808 ), by Gods grace king of Denmark and Norway, the vends and the goths, duke to Slesvig, Holstein, Storman and Ditmarsken, count of Oldenburg and Delmenhorst as was his official title, was even from his ascension to the throne in his teens known to suffer from a serious mental condition and never ruled Denmark in anything but name alone. His condition, described as something akin to scizofrenia, grew with his age and the adult Christian was known, and is still remembered, for his escapades with the prostitute "Støvlet-Cathrine", which means "Boot-Cathrine", in the night-life of Copenhagen where he toured the local bars with a rowdy and violent demeanor; known especially for his drunkeness and aggression towards the citizens and "vægterne", a kind of police force or night-watchmen with whom he often fought, and sometimes won if one is to trust the account of the many "morgenstjener", mauls or maces ( "vægternes" weapon-of-choice ), he had in his collection.
As mentioned above his reign were close to an oligarchy due to his lack of both sanity and ability, and the leading men of the state were locked in a constant struggle to control the crown, but one of these, the kings personal physician Struensee soon rose to power through his romantic relationship to king Christians wife, the queen Caroline Mathilde and she even bore him a son.
Such was the character of Christian the 7th that not much is to be remembered of him nor retold now except that he lost a good deal of danish land abroad, was forced to give his crown to his infant son and that other powerful figures in the kingdom soon took the power after Struensee and when his and the queens affaire was revealed, by others greedy for power, Struensee was cut into pieces and paraded on wheels while his head and hands were attached to long pikes and also paraded as was the customary punishment for treason.
Christian died, according to contemporary history, from a heart attack when he from his balcony saw Napoleons spanish allied-troops camping outside his castle "Rendsborg" in 1808, obviously a returning and much spoken of nightmare of his about black devils come true.
But besides giving Struensee a son the queen also managed to give birth to little Frederik, who became king Frederik the 6th :
https://img168.imageshack.us/img168/...ikvifp3.th.jpg
Frederik the 6th ( 1768-1839 ) king of Denmark and Norway, was granted the authority ( in name only as with his mad father ) of kingship when he was only 4 years old as his father clearly was unfit to hold it, so the little Frederik began his life almost as his father had lived his; under the control, tyranny even, of the powerful government officials who happened to be in power at that time and who had forced his father to accept terms which were close to a resignation; at least it transferred kingly authority to the crownprince Frederik. The failings as a king and even as a human being which were later attributed to him were in part said to be the contribution of a harsh upbringing by his mothers lover the above-mentioned Struensee who raised the young Frederik in a manner inspired by the french philosopher Rousseaus book "Émile".
As he came of age the power of the kingdom was still primarily in the hands of other men ( the new king was known to have inherited the mental sickness of his father and atop of that a physical frailty and features of one clearly inbred that cursed him to be laughing stock all around the european courts ) A.P. Bernstorff, another official who had seized power after Struensee, and to be fair to both him and Struensee and their ilk a lot of progressive reforms was introduced in the periods of their unofficial rule, reforms which were not to the kings taste, freedom of speech for example, and some other ones important for danish history which I shall refrain from discussing further here as they hold no real relevance to the subject at hand. All in all the king Frederik was, like most his fellow aristocrats around europe, a reactionary in an increasingly progressive society.
These social and political advancements were quickly overthrown upon Bernstorffs death by the adult king Frederik who was then as unpopular as ever, and he had never been popular, and thus further alienated himself from the people he was meant to rule.
But it was not before the french revolution the king really shone in the context of this thread; when the french-british war began, Denmark-Norway, which then were united under the danish crown, sought neutrality along with Sweden, Russia and Preussia but were attacked by the English Royal Navy under Horatio Nelson due to its geography and for the king refusing to give up on his policy towards the war. A battle at sea followed with Denmark-Norway losing to Great Britain only by a small margin and with great losses on both sides. And with this loss also any hope for any neutral alliance.
Then, when Napoleon became emperor of almost all of europe except Great Britain, Denmark and Russia, the kings choice of allies made reality of the english threats and the ensuing bombardement of Copenhagen with rockets from the english man-o-war´s are known as history´s first civilian bombardement. The danish-norwegian fleet, which were at the time the worlds largest, were at the time of the attack on land for several reasons, some of the important of which are related to the economical turmoil created by the king who was increasingly set on ruling his kingdom ( and had among other things spent a lot of ressources and energy on "duties" like outfitting the army with the expensive but impractical uniforms of the day, a new dazzling design each month as was his mania ), although he bears this guilt only partly.
But then Frederik declared war on Great Britain, who had attacked without a declaration of war ( first such occurance in modern history if I am not mistaken, a trend which have grown common in our time ) and officially joined Napoleon but with the mighty danish-norwegian fleet stolen by the english this would be the beginning of the decline of the danish-norwegian empire which had begun with the swedes taking Skåne and Halland ( from where the danes originate ) on the scandinavian peninsula under Frederiks grandfather, and the eventual loss of danish sovereign over Norway to Sweden.
That Frederik the 6th then disbanded his foreign minister and took his duties upon himself during the diplomatic negotiations under the Wiener Congress and perhaps by his presence saved Denmark from utter ruin ( the Faroe Islands and Greenland remained on danish hands ) does not account for the lack of economical gain from these negotiations, where Denmark was bereft of Norway and parts of northern germany and were left on the brink of bankruptcy. But better still, no doubt, than the total extinction as a nation that it had faced.
And as it often goes in history Frederik the 6th was cheered as a saviour of the fatherland upon return, and was revered until his peaceful death in 1839. That a democratization of Denmark began near the end of his life was a testament to both his inclinations and perhaps the weakness of his character.
Frederik the 6th was followed by Christian the 8th, who rose to be a much too prominent and intelligent king for this thread, but he again was followed by Frederik the 7th :
https://img524.imageshack.us/img524/...markbs9.th.jpg
Frederik the 7th ( 1808 - 1863 ), king of Denmark, also known as the king of democracy, inherited the throne at the age of 39 from the popular Christian the 8th, and was met with much skepticism due to his lack of experience. The king met this with an affinity for drinking, shooting and whoring not very much unlike his grandfather Christian the 7th, and was soon known to have the common touch. He withheld the traditions of his family though and beat his servants like his forefathers before him with the blunt side of a sabre, and his wife too, but was otherwise completely uninterested in the affairs of the kingdom, which to make this short, were most fortunate for this the last real king of Denmark as the wind of change blew across europe in the wake of the revolutions, and brought with it power to the citizenry of the different capitals and a political desire for democracy and change.
Unlike most of his contemporaries around europe Frederik the 7th had, as previously stated, no real interest in the state nor in actual kingship, and because of this Denmark was the only country ( AFAIK ) to undergo a completely peaceful "revolution".
He simply said, when met by the new government of so-called national-liberals demanding his resignation: "Well, now at least I can sleep for as long as I like".
The fact that he willingly subjected to the newly formed democratic constitution and its collaborators - and perhaps his whoring and drinking - has earned him the title of "Frederik Folkekær" which means something like "Frederik, Friend of the People", and makes him somewhat malplaced in this thread of pathetic historical characters, but he more than fulfills the criteria of having had it all but the will to make use of what he had.
The danish royal blood-line of the time, the oldenborgs, died with Frederik the 7th but Denmark, as the worlds oldest kingdom, never lost its royal family which exist to this day, although by law "free" of any and all affairs of the state - a constitutional monarchy.
EDIT: I do not think the following characters belong in this thread and for obvious reasons when reading the first post : Napoleon, Hitler, Labienus, Pyrrhus, Hasdrubal, Marcus Junius Brutus, Pompeius, Sertorius, Marcus Antonius, Gorbatjov, Jeltsin.
I wouldn't exaggerate and compare Dubya to Romulus Augustus. I'd compare him to some mediocre early 4-th century emperor. Actually I think from the Western point of view the geopolitical situation indeed looks like early 4-th century was for Romans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Che Roriniho
I want him to become anoytheer Maximius Daia, but sadly suicide isn't going to be likely. I do have a bit of a soft spot for MD, as not only does he have the same birthday as me, but he stood up against that utter pillock Constantine 'the Great' who set the destruction of the empire into motion. Still, he was a bit of a pillock. phailed at strategy as well, actually, now you've come to mention it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Ulpius
Absolutely agree that Constantine The Great was not so great as an emperor. He was proclaimed "The Great" by the church for recognizing Christianity, but as an emperor he did little good for an empire. That massive civil war he instigated was the last straw that have broken the camel's back. From there the things went downhill fast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Che Roriniho
Don't even get me started on the Church. Destroying every great and noble deed done before, during and since it's creation. Fully half of the 6 wonders of thew world we have definate knowledge of their existence from (Hanging Gardens might not have existed) were destroyed by the Church. They torched he library of alexandria, and killed it's last, and arguably greatest, keeper, Hypatia in a horrible, horrible way (raped, then flayed, before being burnt alive). This caused the datrk ages. Who knows where we could be if they hadn't done that? Thanks christ. When you died, so did everything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Ulpius
That last post is out of place in this thread, not needed or wanted. Sorry if that sounds like I'm being a prick but you must understand that in the past, whenever the topic of religion has creeped into an EB thread, things have gotten ugly pretty quickly, offense has been taken, insults have flown and flaming has occured, and it has invariably ended with threads being locked down. There are places to discuss and debate the validity of religion in society, this thread is not one of them. Again, sorry if I sound like a prick but I've seen this sort of thing before so I'm just trying to, metaphorically, stop the flaming barrel before it hits the gas station. I hope you understand.
On the subject of this thread, I'm really pleased that my assertions about Lepidus and Richard Cromwell have been disagreed with. It's good to see that everyone has a different opinion about the actions of any historical character. I was pretty surprised to see Napoleon here! Of course, one man's genius is another man's buffoon, eh?
Not biased or sensationalist at all.
There is a difference between the Church and terrorists who call themselves Christians, it's the same difference now as it was then. I would suggest that you bear that in mind when discussing these things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Che Roriniho
as far as Constantine goes, I think he had an interesting idea, using a hybridisation of the popular civilian and military religions to try to hold the Empire together, and in fact it sort of worked, if you look at Mediaeval Christendom and the Papacy you can see that it helped to hold the Western powers at least loosely together in terms of language and culture.
Unfortunately the Empire was already in terminal decline when Constantine took power and he was unable to find a successor who could continue things in the same direction. Change of direction was a major issue for the Roman Empire, and the Republic before it.
As a man he was pretty ruthless and dispicable though.
no there is no difference, those "terrorists" are the church... the invention of the church was all about control. the "holy" roman empire was made Christian because they wanted to have a level of connection with the people, so they would be more loyal. Christianity was invented more than a generation after Jesus' death. He was then blown out of proportion to seem like some huge messiah. and since nobody was alive when he was around to say "no thats not true" it was believed.
FOR INSTANCE do you know what the ancient Egyptian word for mummy is? Krist. (Krst actually since there are no vowels in ancient Egyptian so Tutankhamen is actually said t-t-kh-mn)
look at all the ancient religions, Christianity stole pretty much all the stories they call fact.
admittedly Diocletian set it on a bit of a downhill, but Constantine just destroyed it. plus, his milatary reforms turned ythe army into a shadow of it's former self. gone are the scutums, here are a sort of round thingy. Well done, you wazzok.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Also the Temple of Artemis at Ephesius (sp?)was destroyed ijn a mob led by Saint John Chrysostom, so it's not entirely unsolicited.
I wouldn't describe Christianity as a source of all evils. The rise of Christianity took place at the same time as the destruction of the classical world, but Christianity was not the cause of that destruction. Actually the decline of the classical world and more precisely that of the Roman Empire was the cause of the rise of Christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk
As to Christianity "stealing" all the stories, Christianity is hardly alone here. Judaism have incorporated a lot from Assyro-Shumerian mythology and Islam is pretty much built on the foundations of Christianity and Judaism.
Because of the emphasis of forgiveness from christianity, the empire became softer, so any trouble makers could become more powerful (ie, not dead).Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Ulpius
Personally, if I had to have a religion, I'd be a polytheist. so much more FUN, don't you think? Plus, it explains everything, albeit wrongly, and it allows thinking. Unlike a certain monotheist religion.
oh, Celtic Punk, I want your babies.
Look, if you want to hate Christianity thats fine but throwing around accusations and pulling up vague linguistic oddities is not going to impress anyone. What does the egyptian "Krst" mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk
I will quite happily tell you where Christ comes from, from the Greek "Cristos" meaning "anointed one" which is the meaning of Messiah, an appelation given to such historical characters as David and the pagan Persian Cyrus the Great. As I title it really isn't all that gobsmacking and it certainly doesn't indicate he was the litteral son of God. What it does indicate is his status as a legitimate Israelite King, for which he seems to have had a fairly good genaeological claim.
Now to take the Library at Alexandria, it is said that the Patriarch ordered the burning all the pagan temples in the city but even a quick glance at wiki shows it's not that clear cut. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria
The Emperor ordered the closing of all pagan temples at this time and the Church happily agreed but I see no evidence, in the contemporary or near contemporary sources, that he deliberately destroyed the Royal Library. To be honest I find it difficult to believe given the fairly generous view many Churchmen held of Pagan philiosohpy, an excellant exposition of the view was provided in "On the Christian Doctrine" by Saint Augustine.
But what about the Coptic Christians, the ones who savagely killed Hypatia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia_of_Alexandria? Does this not say something abot wthe typees of thing that happened under the Church, in this case St. Cyril?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I stand corrected, albeit on flimsy terms about the destruction of Bibliotheka Alexandeia.
Diocletian? Try Marius.Quote:
Originally Posted by Che Roriniho
Under Constantine the Army was restructured to be more fluid and mobile and to prevent any one commander from amassing a large enough force for long enough to threaten Imperial authority. Getting rid of the scutum was beyond irrelevant, and the shield that replaced it was much better suited for the kind of legionary warfare that had developed, not to mention easier to use, lighter and cheaper to make. Ecenomics killed the Empire and that was down to about 100 years of Civil War.
I'm not denying that terrible things were done in the name of Christianity, but that in no way makes the Church itself an evil thing.
Lulwut? Without him, The empire wouldn't existed beyond Italy and some of Africa. not much of a big deal. But the whole of the Med? THAT'S a big deal. Why change a formula that works? When the emporer came along, just ive him an army twice the size of the others under his direct command.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Seriously, let's not get into religion here.
Each to his own thoughts. Yes, Christianity has caused a lot of pain and desolation in this world. Actually, I think that the power-mad idiots who said themselves to be christians and used men with weak wills to do what they wanted.
Lex Luthor is probably the most pathetic.
And this topic is proof that the EB board needs to keep the incest (ew) that's been going on for the longest time. That, or would the mods kindly close this topic?
Aye, it's sad that a few people can't address what the OP was looking for and have to bring their own prejudices (dubyah or Christianity for example) into it :).Quote:
Originally Posted by russia almighty
IBTL.
You see, there were these little dudes called the Sassanids...Quote:
Originally Posted by Che Roriniho
Arrogant egomanical incompetents annoy me, so I will nominate Charles De Gaull as a famous 'loser'. Hung onto the skirttails of the Americans until the war was over then proclaimed himself the saviour of france :thumbsdown: Stole the glory at every opportunity while doing very, very little. The definition of loser.
Re religion, have to agree with the last posters, yes, Christianity has caused a lot of grief over the ages, but then, religious bigots (and the lowlife scum that exploit simple minded true believers) of all varieties are very bad news, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu etc etc. Look beyond the media we are fed every day and you will see some truly horrific religious violence. Best not to even debate it in semi polite forums.
I don't think PVC meant "Marius was a pathetic historical figure who made the Roman Empire lose it all"; rather he meant that with Marius (and his civil war against Sulla) the whole deal of slow desintegration started. (And in fact Diocletian didn't either: he rigidly cut the freedom of the individual 'officers' who had been doing whatever they pleased, often leading to civil revolts or outright civil wars. So he changed the problem from a politic/loyalty/authority one to an economy one, arguably one the Roman Empire was in no shape to tackle. <_<)Quote:
Originally Posted by Che Roriniho
Bingo, couldn't have said it better. To expand slightly, by changing the conditions of service without the necessary idiological or constitutional changes required to deal with the political fallout Marius paved the way for an unconstitutional tyranny in the form of the dictators Sulla and Caesar, which then led to the Principate, a nominally elected monarchy which short circuted the Republican institutions without actually properly reforming them. Once the army realised that it, and only it, could make the Emperor it began making them whenever it became unhappy, which led to the century of Civil Wars. The result was Diocletian and the Dominate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
It's like a massive domino effect.
Arguably the disintegration of the Republic started with Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, not Marius. Marius was simply able to capitalise on what Gracchus had already begun. That being the creation of political consciousness amongst the lowest orders of the plebs, the same people Marius would come to recruit from.
Well, he was walking a tight rope and managed to exist between the US and the British while having little or no power. Starting from scratch, he managed (with a BIG help from Jean Moulin) to unite the different and antagonistic resistance groups into a single body as well as uniting the different political parties into a war coalition government in exile. At the fall of the "Regime de Vichy" (pro-german gov), that government quickly took over and it let the Allies turn their attention to most important matters (heading for Berlin) instead of wasting time subduing the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Perturabo
And he was arrogant enough to resign twice from office.
I'd like to fit in your definition of a loser.
French history is filled with losers, but I don't think De Gaulle fits in.
In the WWII French context, you've Petain; savior of France in 1914, he ends up 30 years later hitting rock bottom and labelled a traitor in most history books. Savior/traitor, now, that's a loser.
The harder they fall...
Vey hard to label Diocletian and Constantine as pathetic or losers, they were struggling to reunite a self destructing entity. Constantine's reforms may look ugly but they were probably more "real-workld" adjustments of policy to recognise the existing situation rather than disasterous pivot points ruining an otherwise perfect world.
Justinian was able to build on Constantine's work and re-establish a bit of a Mediteranean em,pire again: he used up the empire's strength and it was a disater, but he had the strength to try. Thats a testament to his (and Big C's) organisational ability, if not their foresight.
Had Constantine sat still in Rome and reinforced the state there the western Empitrer would probably have still been blown away, people would've criticised him for not taking a chance to do more to preserve the Empire.
Petain made the Devil's deal, and if there is a French Hell (full of McDonalds) he's there. Shame because he was apparently a somewhat able general. I would hate to have top make the choices he made (cooperate with the Nazis or see your country ploughed under), there's not really a good choice there.
Winston Churchill was saved by making one decent choice in his life, telling Hitler to get stuffed. Prior to that he was a loudmouth dishonest disloyal racist bigoted one-track-broken-record and somewhat incompetent drunk with no friends and no respect from anyone. There's a theory that he was made leader so that in case they had to surrender all the mud would stick to him. Even bad people can do good things, and he did a great thing.
Probably the word "pathetic" is not the good choice, but I'd still defend the choosing of Constantine, may be not as pathetic, but as one of the most "destructive" characters in the latter period of the empire. Of course his reforms were an effort to adjust the Roman war machine to the crumbling economy (thus worse equipment for the legions) and prevent the situation where each legion commander could suddenly decide he should be an emperor and start a mutiny (and that's what was happening in the empire for the most part of 3-rd century). But Constantine started a massive civil war, which was virtually the last Roman civil war, he depleted the empire resources to the level that Rome couldn't already defend itself without external help.
The question of whether the Western Empire could be saved or not is complicated as is the question about the inevitability of the general decline of the Roman world. I won't go deep into this because that would derail the thread and the time frame of those events is not related to the EB (although it is related to the BI). But there's a theory saying that every ethnos (or civilization) goes through several stages of it's development from rapid aggressive expansion to stability then decline and destruction (either by military force or by slow assimilation by stronger/younger group) and Romans in 4-th century and onward were drastically different from the Romans of the Republican times or even times of the early Empire, they were much much softer.
caligula. need I say more?
and I can't believe noone said commodus! The guy was practically responsible for Romes stagnation and later, fall.
As to the actual topic of the thread, I'd have to say that Gallienus is one of the more unlucky historical characters, if not pathetic; the man gets dumped on a lot but did a bloody good job under the circumstances. His daddy Valerian was, at the end of his life, the most pathetic Roman Emperor in history, though. Poor guy - just goes to show you can't trust those nasty Persians when negotiating a cease-fire. ~;p And Krateros' end is somewhat sad; a great and brilliant general who dies when his horse falls on him? Come on! At least Neoptolemos died in an epic single combat with Eumenes.
Not at all. Following Constantinus' reign and despite internecine troubles between his sons for the next twenty-four years, the Empire actually strengthened significantly from its low point in the 250s and 260s. The main problem for the Roman economy, which necessitated short-term moneymaking schemes like coinage debasement that ended up pushing them into more of a fiscal freefall during the Crisis of the Third Century (wow I write long sentences), was the rise of the Sassanid Empire. Instead of weak, crappy Pahlava, who never really could stand up to the Roman military - Ctesiphon was sacked something like three times in a hundred years, and Carrhae for all its epicness was a flash in the pan - there was a native Persian dynasty capable of mobilizing the kingdom's resources much better than their steppe predecessors. So the Roman budget suddenly had to make way for a vastly stronger military on the Eastern front during the years of the crisis. Odenathus' victories only partially alleviated the problem; Galerius still had to go into Persia during the time of the Tetrarchy and fight a war with Narseh. After Galerius' war, the Sassanids were largely beaten (though they obviously still remained a major threat, otherwise that whole mess with Maurikios, Phokas, Khusrau, and Herakleios wouldn't have happened...) and the budget was comparatively stabilized, mostly due to Diocletian's and the other tetrarchs' tax reforms. Economic growth continued to a large extent during the fourth century all the same, despite the increased taxation; take a look at Africa, where instead of grain, olives and vines were cultivated, allowing a much larger area of the land to be used for growing stuff (since olives don't need as much water as grain does). Throughout the Roman East, agriculture - the mainstay of any economy for another thousand years after the Romans' fall - was reaching its maximum output during the fourth and fifth centuries. Hispania, southern Gallia, and Roman Britannia are largely the same. Only in Italia and the Rhine frontier is there any evidence of major shortfalls in agricultural prosperity during these times. (Yes, I know about the old chestnut of the 'agri deserti' and the 'flight of the curials'. The former seems to be a reference to lands where no taxes were being collected, which in almost every case were territories that never were cultivated much anyway; the latter just means that instead of getting involved in local government, the 'curials' were joining the imperial bureaucracy. Those two myths really ought to be put to rest; they stopped being serious historical positions in the 1940s and 50s after Tchalenko published.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Ulpius
Long story short, the economy tanking later on wasn't Constantinus' fault. It mostly occurred after the great Rhine irruptions of the first decade of the fifth century (when Vandali, Burgundii, and the lot were able to sweep through Gallia and Hispania and generally disrupt tax collection and agriculture...and cut off relatively prosperous Britannia from imperial control as well), and was vastly exacerbated by the fall of Byzacena and Africa Proconsularis to the Vandali in the 430s and 440s. North Africa was the richest area of the Roman Empire in virtually every period of its existence (save perhaps Egypt in the earlier phases), and losing it was a body blow. And collapse came very quickly once the 468 Carthago expedition failed, making it clear that those revenues would never be recovered...
That's Gibbon talking. :book: On what grounds? The Empire was if anything more militarized than it had been in the Principate...Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Ulpius
Commodus was a pretty ridiculous figure, but I don't know if I'd call him pathetic; a big dude all done up to look like Herakles wearing the skin of a lion looks pretty cool IMHO. He coulda been a lot less insane though. That tends to be a bonus, especially when you're emperor of the most powerful state in the world.
Caligula WAS the worst emperor... really... man ...that guys was totally mAD! :rolleyes5:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caligula
in response to those guys who were trying to chew me out there, i didn't mention that its not the followers of Christianity whom were at fault (most religions have stolen different stories, gods, ideals, ect.) its the ones who head the religion. Its not for a form of worship for them, its for control. Im sorry if im offending you but when the topic arose, i just wanted to dish my 2 cents (or pence :chinese: ) Most religions are not in place for worship, but merely for control. I myself was a christian, but upon realization of what it was i denounced my religion ( i see myself as more of a pagan)
you are welcome to worship whichever god(s) you want, but at least know this, dont trust the pope. anyone who says they are closer to God then you is a total wanker. But by all means follow the teachings and ideals of Jesus, he was one Hell of a guy. *thumbs up*
Giovanni Luigi de Fiesco, Duke of Lavagna, who lead a revolt against Andrea Doria in Genoa 1547. The revolt was a total success until he stepped on a plank to enter a ship and slipped. Wearing his bling-bling armour he sunk like a stone....goodbye Mr. Fiesco. They found him 3 days later on the shores.
Imagine this as a movie...everbody would say:" This ending is not very comprehensible!"...Well, Schiller actually made a drama about the revolt in 1547.
I always thought that Benito Mussolini was an eegit (idiot for you non isles lads)
btw its not like mr fiesco would have been able to swim if he wasnt wearing armour! haha
Interesting, maybe this explains where the word "fiasco" came from...:clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Subedei
Seems like you have had a bad experience with the catholic church. I find myself agreeing that the concept of having a pope is flawed, as it creates arrogance for a person to think they are the best Christian. I also disagree with many motives of the catholic church, as it seems it is based more upon doing good deeds and working your way into heaven than accepting Jesus. This just leads to people thinking they are "better" christians. Still though, you shouldn't give up your beliefs if you felt that people were trying to manipulate the religion, there are sects that don't focus on Christianity being a powerful faction in the world, but as a religion, such as protestants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk
Human beings are, for the most part, selfish creatures who will use whatever method to get what they want. Manipulation of religion is merely one of the more obvious representations and yet removing it would change exactly nothing. Ethnicity, culture, political affiliation, economic status, etc ad-nauseum will always give people a reason and justification for comitting harm upon others. Of course, the fact that many people percieve religious folks (meaning Christians for most of the western world) as "telling them what to do" invariably elicits a reactionary response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumbass
Any of you who think removing one motivation will actually help things - well, keep taking whatever you're taking - must be good stuff. There will always be strong ambitious folks who will use whatever tool necessary to herd weak willed fools (of which - there will also always be plenty.)
----------------------------------
Pierre-Charles Villeneuve would be another person I would add to the list. Not only in not having his fleet adequately trained but by also being caught with his shorts around his ankles when Nelson tried his unconventional tactics and then failing to react well to it. Kudos to Nelson, mind, and he deserves all the accolades but I wouldn't place Villeneuve at better than average and probably less so. The underlying reasons why he was in command rather than a more seasoned officer can be blamed on the revolution likely but doesn't mean he still failed to step up when it mattered.
A possible entry mainly because his most famous act is the greatest military cock-up in modern history.
Who else but Cardigan and the charge of the light brigade. Now it may not have been his fault, and the charge may actually have succeeded, but the clear idiocy of an attack down a fortified valley staight at an artillery battery beggars believe. So much so that the Russians thought that the english cavalrymen must have been drunk or drugged and asked prisoners what they had been given to charge the guns to which one replied (in true British fashion), "By God, if we had so much as smelt the barrel we would have taken half Russia by this time."
I think he warrants a place purely because he is known for cardigans and near-suicidal cavalry charges.
For that matter, even when the western economy tanked, the Eastern economy was going strong until Heraklios...and that wasn't his fault, really; having most of your empire conquered does that to you. But even so, the Byzantine Economy WAS the most stable in the Middle Ages/Late antiquity, until around the time of Nikephoros III, IIRC. (Admittedly, that's a little later than my field of study. I'm fond of the Isaurians, if by fond, you mean cursing up a storm at them as I research them :book:)Quote:
Long story short, the economy tanking later on wasn't Constantinus' fault. It mostly occurred after the great Rhine irruptions of the first decade of the fifth century (when Vandali, Burgundii, and the lot were able to sweep through Gallia and Hispania and generally disrupt tax collection and agriculture...and cut off relatively prosperous Britannia from imperial control as well), and was vastly exacerbated by the fall of Byzacena and Africa Proconsularis to the Vandali in the 430s and 440s. North Africa was the richest area of the Roman Empire in virtually every period of its existence (save perhaps Egypt in the earlier phases), and losing it was a body blow. And collapse came very quickly once the 468 Carthago expedition failed, making it clear that those revenues would never be recovered...
Oh, absolutely. The Eastern economy had to be fantastic in order to give out all that tribute to first the Huns of Attila and then the various barbarians that Iustinianus kept bribed (and that Iustinus II decided to stop payments to...a brave notion, and plays well to the people, but sadly foolish). As to the state of the later Eastern Roman economy, I remember reading that Theophilos and Mikhael II had an awful lot of cash; apparently they were able to open up a significant number of new gold mines in 9th century Armenia. But the situation was of course terrible after the Anatolian themes were run over two hundred years later, so that Alexios I had to try to play around with making new stable currency to try to get the budget balanced again (it didn't work). Now you got me interested in this again...need to go look this stuff up! :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Justinian II
Which Isaurians, the fifth century ones or Leon III's dynasty? Either one works...~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Justinian II
oh and dont forget Hadrian. You may think I'm wrong but hear me out. Trajan greatly extended the borders of the empire, and Hadrian could have followed in his footsteps and totally conquered Britain and possibly even Persia, but he didn't, and those 2 borders ended up being the most problematic in the Empire. He couldve at least stayed where Trajan left the borders but he RETREATED! 200 MILES!
Thing is, Hadrianus couldn't have conquered Persia. He had to deal with Hatra in his rear (Traianus forgot about that minor little city, and as the story goes it cost him his life) and the Jewish revolt of Bar-Kochba was just getting started, making logistical support for any army in Mesopotamia or Persia completely impossible. Mesopotamia isn't really a viable conquest for the Romani anyway until after Christianity spreads there in the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries BC, so they have a reasonable portion of the population supporting them. (And then the financial circumstances of the Empire twice prevented them from taking advantage of it - when Maurikios had put Khosrau II back on the throne for one, and when Herakleios had won the Last Persian War for another.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Majd il-Romani
As for Britannia; who really wants a rocky, useless peninsula like Caledonia? There's no money in it, and the barbarians there are awfully annoying and insist that people differentiate between a burr and a brogue. ~;p It's sort of like the reason the Romani never expanded into the old Jastorf cultural zone: it's not cost-effective, and the new territories would take forever to be properly Romanized and start making money. Look how long it took with Gallia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constantius III
OK I understand persia but with Britain he could have counquered and subjugated it so resistance would not be large and organized but small and scattered, giving the empire safetey in the long run because to attack Britain you'd have to cross the sea
To my knowledge the English (whose powerbase was far closer to Caledonia than the Romans') only succeeded in subjugating the highlands after they constructed several military highways into the mountains. This gave their armies the opportunity to quickly mobilize and suppress any local discontent. The Romans didn't have this option: they could have marched in Caledonia all they liked, but the locals would simply scatter and reassemble when the Romans had left. Lack of agriculture in combination with lack of roads made stationing garrisons not viable: no foraging and difficult resupplying. And due to poor communications they would have need many of these garrisons.
In any case, the Picts were only part of the problems that the Roman garrison on Britain faced. Raiding Irish were also a major problem. The sea certainly didn't seem to impair them.
What about Antiochos IV Epiphanes? He has earned the reputation of a villain in Jewish tradition, but what about the guy himself?
Does it? May well be...gotta do some research....never thought about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by V.T. Marvin
as for the one who said henry V was the last englsh king to go to battle-that's plainly wrong. George II was the last one to do so, at the battle of dettingen in 1743(though he was quite old by then). the last king to visit the font lines if I recall was George V. now his (George II's) son, the duke of cumberland,should be on this list: out of half a dozen battles, that guy won only one (cullodun, 1746). www.britishbattles.com is quite a source. read the Austrian successin battles and have a laugh.
anoter pathetic fellow is honorius; Valentianus III as also a srewup. but neither of them have anyhing to Petronius Maximus. he was th redefinition of patheti imbecility. he helped orchistrate Aetius' killing with Valentinianus III. after the empreror gave im nothng in return, he ecruited 2 fellows fom Aetius' guard to assassinate Vlentinianus (so I have read) then as empreror himself, he stole hunnoric's bride, eudoxia the younger, thus causing his reign to last 9 weeks, since Geiseric and hunnoric cae to get her back, he panicked and tried to run frm rome, but thenthe poeple caught him and stoned him to death as e tried to run. this led to the sacking of roma in 455AD by the vandals. Valentinanus' reign did not see roa sacked BTW(onorius and petronius maximus, yes)
@Appo: napoleon I had a son, who was briefly declared Napoleon II (born 1811 or 1812, don't remember exactly when). but it was out of his second marriage, not his first(the first was Josephine). that's why Napoleon III is Napoleon III (r.1848-1871). he is also said to have fathered a girl from one of he women who came with him to St. Helena (the girl was said to look like him a lot). the wman BTW was also coincidentally known to be a cuckolder of her husand,who according to one theory, killed Napoleon I with arsenic (no I'm not reading pyramidiot alternative history stuff-ven a good deal of conventionl historians say so). wierd wt historians come up with.:laugh4:
I read about Napoleon a lot :beam:
Antiochos IV Epiphanes in his conquering of Egypt, so close, and then Rome sends Gaius Popillius Laenas, to make him draw circles?
wikipedia:Quote:
Originally Posted by Subedei
From Italian fiasco (“‘bottle, flask’”) - the type of round wine bottle, sometimes wrapped in straw, used traditionally for Chianti wine. The failure sense specifically derives via French from the Italian phrase fare fiasco, literally meaning “make a bottle” (used in Italian theatre to mean “failure in a performance”). This is similar to the informal British English usage of "to bottle out" meaning to "lose one's nerve".
An alternative interpretation of the Italian "far fiasco" as a meaning for failure can be traced to production of glass bottles by glass blowing. A mistake in the process would result in a bottle of irregular shape with protruding or enlarged base is termed "fiasco" as opposed to "bottiglia"