Pathetic Historical Characters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ||Lz3||

...
Napoleon is by no means pathetic to me...

---

Agree. I'm a bit of leftist about historical theory ("its like a wave, man") but occasionally a great individual makes a lasting difference and he's one of those guys. Kinda like the Mule in "Foundation and Empire"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ||Lz3||

...oh and btw what about Richard III Lionheart ? he wasnt that bad...

---

Richard II Lionheart? The Queer Crusader? Spent his life fighting his father, his brother and dashing off to the Holy Land with his favourite minstrel, whilst failing to capture Jerusalem or impregnate his beautiful wife. Another over-rated monarch put up by the Whig revisionists (in this case to denigrate his bro John who reaffirmed papal sovreignty of England, a big no-no for the Protestant Establishment of the UK).

Richard the third wasted time "and now time doth waste me..."

I meant the crusader :sweatdrop: , at least he and lead his troops in battle (wich eventually got him killed , oh well...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dominique

-Muhammad II of Khwarezm, the dimmest bulb who ever shone on a muslim kingdom, who tried to usurp the caliphate and lost his army in a snowstorm and then, making things better, beheaded Gengis Khan's emissaries. Well. He got what he deserved. The people of Samarkand, Boukhara and of Khwarezm in general DIDN'T deserve this, though. I don't know any words that can tell the horror that can bring 200 000 angry and vengeful mongols on a country.

---

That guy was certainly a loser, but a bigger loser (and almost his contemporary) was Caliph Al-Musta'sim Billah of the Abbasid dynasty of Caliphs at Baghdad.

It was his predecessor An-Nasir's entreaty to Genghis Khan for help against the Khwarezm Shah that brought the Mongols first to Samarqand, from whence, encouraged by their victory over Muhammad II, some twenty years later under Hulagu Khan they advanced to Baghdad.

And what did the Caliph do to prepare his country for their invasion and to defend Baghdad?

Absolutely nothing - having been persuaded by his Vizier that the Mongols could be scared off by the women of Baghdad throwing stones at them, he sat on his hands, prepared no defences, raised no army and paid the ultimate price for it - being rolled up in a carpet and trampled by horses after being locked in his treasury by Hulagu Khan.

Lame.

Lionheart got nailed by a crossbow in France didn't he? whichever place he croaked, he introduced the crossbow to them... shows you that you don't hand out technology willy nilly Ricky!

Napoleon was just compensating by the way, its a confirmed fact that he suffered from micropenis condition (less than 2 inches erect [LETS BE ADULT ABOUT THIS!!!!]) if you want citations i can sift through my shelf of history books. If you dissect his actions and reactions throughout his reign of terror, you can see has a superiority complex, and has problems controlling himself. He was pretty much a big child. Plus any general that doesn't give a shit about his men like Napoleon grinds my gears.

It takes balls to lead your men into combat. it takes balls to say FOLLOW ME! but thats something Napoleon never had. Physically and metaphorically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk

Napoleon was just compensating by the way, its a confirmed fact that he suffered from micropenis condition (less than 2 inches erect [LETS BE ADULT ABOUT THIS!!!!]) if you want citations i can sift through my shelf of history books. If you dissect his actions and reactions throughout his reign of terror, you can see has a superiority complex, and has problems controlling himself. He was pretty much a big child. Plus any general that doesn't give a shit about his men like Napoleon grinds my gears.

It takes balls to lead your men into combat. it takes balls to say FOLLOW ME! but thats something Napoleon never had. Physically and metaphorically.

---

does the size matter to classify someone as pathetic?:inquisitive:

I'm pretty sure that for the people of france it wasn't a reign of terror but rather of glory , france was the strongest country in europe when he was around , when he came back from Elba island the people in paris welcomed him back with cheers.

Also I'm pretty sure I saw in a documentary that at Waterloo he wanted to lead a last glorious charge of the Old guard but his generals refused , saying that he was too valuable to be lost that way and that there were chances of him recovering the power and beating the allies however that didn't hapened cause he was at war with half Europe...

I say again... he's not pathetic...

EDIT: I'm not sure if Richard was killed in france... I think it was a bit more to the north , Ironic that the weapon classified as coward and only for peasants actually killed a king ...that surely was an offense to the knights :P

Napoleon dominated his era like Caesar did his. Even if they were not altogether successful, after them, there was no turning back. After Caesar the time of the city-state was gone. After Napoleon, absolutism and feodalism were no longer viable regimes.

Even if Napoleon had a small dick, he still the only one who conquered Europe from Madrid to Moscow. Wellington may have been well-hung, but he's remembered as the faire-valoir of Napoleon. Nothing else.

A bit like Brutus, in fact. We know them because they were party poopers. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ||Lz3||

does the size matter to classify someone as pathetic?:inquisitive:

I'm pretty sure that for the people of france it wasn't a reign of terror but rather of glory , france was the strongest country in europe when he was around , when he came back from Elba island the people in paris welcomed him back with cheers.

Also I'm pretty sure I saw in a documentary that at Waterloo he wanted to lead a last glorious charge of the Old guard but his generals refused , saying that he was too valuable to be lost that way and that there were chances of him recovering the power and beating the allies however that didn't hapened cause he was at war with half Europe...

I say again... he's not pathetic...

EDIT: I'm not sure if Richard was killed in france... I think it was a bit more to the north , Ironic that the weapon classified as coward and only for peasants actually killed a king ...that surely was an offense to the knights :P

---

is that why they threw him out? and exiled him?

that is also very ironic, however the fact that he gave the bloody weapon to them is far funnier and ironic IMHO lol

i never said size matters to classify him, it was just something that drove him to be "bigger" in other areas. it also explains why he never had a son, since he was literally incapable.

not to forget that his army admired(or even loved) him , when he returned from Elba , he was caught by a group of soldiers who were ordered to stop him , but instead he stood in front of them and shouted "Would you shoot your own emperor?!", then they started to chear him as a hero

as for wellington... not sure what would have happened if Blücher (Prussians) hadn't arrived:thinking2:

oh and.... he did had children... in fact he even had several bastard sons

and...
Historians place the generalship of Napoleon as one of the greatest military strategists who ever lived, along with Alexander and Caesar. Wellington, when asked who was the greatest general of the day, answered: "In this age, in past ages, in any age, Napoleon."

this was posted somewhere else not by me...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Napoleon was decisive and always grasped the initiative if possible. His conquests are self-evidently important due to both their extent and the fact that there had not been a European conquerer of his scale since Karl der Grosse. There would not be another until Hitler or Stalin.

Was Naopleon's brilliance the result of his own abilities only?
Absolutely not. Napoleon was brilliant, of that there can be no question. His tactical skill is evidenced from his incredible articluation (reminiscent of Hannibal) to his mastery of the three arms of the military.
His articulation and army organiation is attributable to French military theorists who wrote just prior to the Revolution. I won't go into details but suffice to say that they gave Napoleon the clay with which he would be able to establish an Empire, not to mention the incredible staff he was blessed to have. His personal bravey is without question-look at Arcola, for example. Still, keep in mind that he had a ton of help getting France to the zenith of power, lots of help. Davoult seems to me to be one of the greatest Marshals of all time-simply incredible all around commander. And there were a host of others.

In terms of his rule itself-we ned to remember that essentially, in spite of his superior military strategic intelligence, he was basically from a backward backwater. He was not meant to be an enlightened ruler, he was at heart a tyrant, but with some ameliorating influences around him. Regardless, one of the greatest contradictions of the first empire was that a tyrant autocrat followed the peoples' revolution od 1789. This is vastly more interesting to me than his tactical skill which I would suggest is less historically important than why he was allowed to rule.

Is it because people are just more comfortable with a tyrant as their leader because he neither wants other people to make/inform political decisions (democracy) nor make informed decisions (enlightened despot) himself. Perhaps it is simpler this way, as people have decision making taken out of their hands. They are fed, thus they are happily ignorant (does this sound reminiscent of a particular US president?).

Keep in mind bereattrca that Napoleon actually repealed some property rights of women and their ability to divorce! Not very enlightened hmm? Perhaps, this sounds familiar? Like Russia after the revolution of 1917 and Stalin, or China and Mao, etc. History, as the saying goes, certainly does appear to repeat itself.

Still in the long view of things, his victory at Austerlitz, for example, is likely without comparison in terms of military history. Austerlitz is unique. To actually give your opponents (Russians/Austrians?) the advantage of high gound and then still proceed to smash them is the height of both supreme arrogance and self-assured skill.

As others have pointed out he did face many generals who retained outmoded tactics, but that should not diminish the scope of his accomplishments in terms of miltary thinking.

I'm not sure how peaceful his rest was Napoleon.

Its been recently suggested that he may have been poisoned. Be that as it may, he was not even allowed to ride his horse without an escort during his final exile. That must have been eternally galling for the once Emperor of all of continental Europe. Think of being reduced to living on a lump of rock in the middle of the Atlantic, this is an inauspicious and counter-climactic ending for a life so superficially sensationalistic. I think his isolated existence would have caused him many aggravations and self-questioning, the incessant "what ifs". Stil, in the end he was simply the son of a poor, uneducated Corsican farmer, so maybe it wasn't as distastful as we would envision?

One of my favourite quotes of his that has, strangley enough, nothing to do with warfare is his characterization of Tallyrand, his foreign minister. He called him,

"a silk-stocking full of shit"

That one always evokes a smile.

Chargez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phonicsmonkey

That guy was certainly a loser, but a bigger loser (and almost his contemporary) was Caliph Al-Musta'sim Billah of the Abbasid dynasty of Caliphs at Baghdad.
Lame.

---

It seems to me that all the muslim rulers living between 1080 and 1260 (with the exception of Saladin) were dumb bastards... In Spain, in Turkey, in Egypt, in the Khwarezm, in India the leaders were all pathetic.

:inquisitive:

They should have a honorary award just for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Very very capable politician Lincoln: deceptive and effective. I wonder if he had lived what would've happened: third term (very likely), better resolved the constitutional issues that led to secession (quite likely) and become less well respected (the longer he was in office the more mud would've stuck).

---

He wouldn't have ran for a third term. Thats against all American political tradition.

Right,

“Lincoln lied hundreds of thousands died,” all very creepy and a bit scary?
History can't be playing that big a joke?

I actually did a little study on what role Lincoln played in starting the war. I uncovered some very interesting facts. For example, it was no accident of history that the war started in Charleston Harbor. There was a very good reason and as the Chief enforcer of Federal law Lincoln was deeply involved. Remember Lincoln was above all else a good lawyer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

He wouldn't have ran for a third term. Thats against all American political tradition.

---

Not in the 1860s.

Im surprised nobody has mentioned Hitler, of all tyrants, he was the most child like. exploding into tantrums whenever something didnt go his way.

did you know at the endgame, he was counting on "phantom armies" that never existed to begin with, or were destroyed in the battle for Normandy to come to his rescue and attack the Americans from behind. Its one thing to be a crybaby. Completely different to be a delusional, psychopath, with not only delusions of grandeur but unable to accept your own defeat.

that said...
Hitler at the beginning was incredibly intelligent and calculating. Verrrry charismatic.


Anyone here a fan of Robert the Bruce?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnhughthom

Not in the 1860s.

---

Tradition not law.

Well it was until the first American king. Thereafter Congress had to codify the two term tradition.

indeed hitler was a complete idiot regarding military disicions ... you can't complain to that otherwise he would have conquered the "whole frikin world " and that wouldn't be nice :smash:

indeed he's quite pathetic... prefering to let his country die rather than his... then just abandon his countrymen by killing himself...:shifty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dominique

It seems to me that all the muslim rulers living between 1080 and 1260 (with the exception of Saladin) were dumb bastards... In Spain, in Turkey, in Egypt, in the Khwarezm, in India the leaders were all pathetic.

:inquisitive:

They should have a honorary award just for them.

---

Going a bit far perhaps - Nur ad-Din was no slouch, neither was his general Shirkuh.

Certainly the various Caliphs, Sultans and Atabegs were divided, insular in some cases and somewhat complacent, which contributed to the fall of the Caliphate, the success of the First Crusade and the later Mongol invasion.

But to write them all off at the stroke of a pen is more than a little harsh, particularly if you're extending your point all the way to India. Over there, Muhammad of Ghor and Qutbuddin Aybak were successful in conquering large swathes of the Punjab and holding them for centuries (the Delhi Sultanate).

You could probably argue they were lucky to avoid invasion by the Mongols though..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ||Lz3||

indeed hitler was a complete idiot regarding military disicions ... you can't complain to that otherwise he would have conquered the "whole frikin world " and that wouldn't be nice :smash:

indeed he's quite pathetic... prefering to let his country die rather than his... then just abandon his countrymen by killing himself...:shifty:

---

he came up with blitzkrieg... actually probably Rommel did... I'd bet 20 bucks that bloody Hitler stole the credit

ROMMEL, now there was a great soldier, led by example, he wasn't a freakin' Nazi and loved his family (which is why he killed himself to save his family from Hitler's wrath)

though i completely disagree with suicide (ill go out swinging thanks:duel:) given Erwin's situation when Hitler uncovered the plot he was involved with, I believe he made the right choice. He knew the game was up before everyone anyway. He knew the Atlantic wall wouldn't hold forever. And when Goering's massive air assault in the huge Battle of Britain failed to destroy fighter command... the war was lost.

Sorry, not on the mark.

The "official" Father of the german mechanized Warfare is Guderian, who wrote the manuals at the start of the thirties, formulated design specifications etc, although the first ideas in germany can be dated to to von Seeckt in 1925, when the german army started to plan for the rematch.

Rommel, while being an exceptional soldier, had nothing to do with tankwarfare until 1940. He was an infantry officer, commanded Hitlers guard battalion and got bestowed by Adolf with the command of a tank division, altough he had practically nil experience.
Though success laid any discussion about that at rest.

indeed it was Gauderian, Rommel was a great Marshal , in fact I read somewhere that actually he had nothing to do with the plot... but his name appeared in some documents wich lead hittler to bealive he was involved...and he made him commit suicide... (I'm remembering surena for some reason...):shifty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmacq

Tradition not law.

Well it was until the first American king. Thereafter Congress had to codify the two term tradition.

---

Yep. That tradition began with Washington being hounded from offiice in a way inconsistant with the subsequent Legend of the Founder.

What did King Franklin say? "I could see this country was headed for a revolution, so I decided to put myself at the head of it" or something. Still I have to hand it too him, he manipulated the causus belli with Japan very neatly, not unlike Lincoln at Charleston.

I have not doubt from my extremely limited knowledge that Lincoln would have gone the third term. The sheer willpower and ego of the bloke was monumental. He was prepared to rape the constitution to save the Union, and to unmake the South to preserve the whole. Like many great statesmen he is a bit to big to sum up in a sentence, and there's bad stuff the goes unexamined because of his magnitude and his legend.

If Washington is Romulus, then Lincoln is Augustus, or at least Marius.

:idea2::idea2::idea2:

Hey, do any of you guys think you can attemp a comparison between the 43 US presidents and the Roman Emperors?

P.S. Would you say Dubya is analagous to Julius Caesar?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

P.S. Would you say Dubya is analagous to Julius Caesar?

---

Im sorry... but What the fuck?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaivs

Im sorry... but What the fuck?

---

Well, Caesar went to war with out the authority of the legislature, So did bush. (congress didn't declare war in Iraq, remember?)

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

I know very little about McLellan, but wasn't R E Lee very concerned when he resumed command of the Union forces? Something along the lines of "This man will strangle us?". IIRC he advocated a methodical advance to Richmond accompanied by side actions in the Shenandoah valley, a bit like Grants victorious strategy, only his tatics were much more timid and slow.

---

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 Celtic_Punk

Lionheart got nailed by a crossbow in France didn't he? whichever place he croaked, he introduced the crossbow to them... shows you that you don't hand out technology willy nilly Ricky!

---

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).

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

Hey, do any of you guys think you can attemp a comparison between the 43 US presidents and the Roman Emperors?

P.S. Would you say Dubya is analagous to Julius Caesar?

---

No contemporary politics, please

:oops:~:doh::stupid:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dominique

-Louis XV of France. He had it all, he lost it all. The colonial empire, European hegemony, a strong economy, a tight control of his country. Ah well, he's more remembered for his mistresses than for anything else. At least he had taste in women.

---

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk

Henry the VIII, total useless womanizer, who blamed his own shitty genes on the women he slept with.

Napoleon was a pathetic person, he was a decent commander, and tactician, but in essence he was a lonely, pathetic, pompous arse.

Edward - Longshanks son total poofter and a useless git. nuff said.

actually most of the british royalty were either flaming homo's or just plain useless... or both.


I DO hold Henry V in great admiration. He was the (edit): LAST king to lead his men into battle.

---

I'm sorry, how is someone's sexuality relevant to whether they are pathetic or not? I would be careful what you say.

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Ah yes, well an American Caesar is a book. :shrug: