Your favourite historical personality

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Or overcrowding political prisoners into spaces meant for less than half of their number! Or getting personal pleasure from ordering or carrying out executions!

The list goes on. And lenin96, we can do precisely the same thing for your choice.



Yes, he never quite thought the Soviets were radical enough...

---

Most of the time it doesn't matter what someone does but why someone does something, you could say killing is always bad, no, the Tzar died and there wasn't much wrong with that, because all of that reasonless opression something had to be done about it. Now in Soviet times you could say people were opressed, if they were it didn't matter because they were helping Socialism, it doesn't really matter what you do to help Socialism, what matters is its effectiveness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lenin96

Most of the time it doesn't matter what someone does but why someone does something, you could say killing is always bad, no, the Tzar died and there wasn't much wrong with that, because all of that reasonless opression something had to be done about it. Now in Soviet times you could say people were opressed, if they were it didn't matter because they were helping Socialism, it doesn't really matter what you do to help Socialism, what matters is its effectiveness.

---

It doesn't matter? So I suppose Communists don't care about how their own people (Which they supposedly represent) live? The Soviets did create the best political heirarchy ever, in theory. Pity is that they deturped the idea from the beginning. I certainly wouldn't mind having the Soviet system in Portugal. It is by far and wide the best model of a workable Direct Economy for a Normal State (Contrary to City-State)

EDIT: Something like this: http://grazian-archive.com/politics/...ior/Fig_10.gif

You can go from a mere village to the Parlament if you're good enough.

I suppose what I said about it mattering about oppression is wrong, but the point is that it doesn't always matter what the people think, do things for thier own good, the loyal servant learns to obey and apreciate things that they wouldn't want but need in order for the state to become strong, as long as people are equal in wealth.

What you say is in theory, right to an extent. Right in the way that the "psychology of the masses" (I have learned this from a man who knows Marxism and Comunism ideology more thoroughly than most modern communist wannabes, even though he isn't a communist himself.), are conservative at heart, since they always despise, reject and struggle against reforms. However, Soviet leaders clearly passed any line of "reasonability" in dealing with the masses, by imposing one of the most oppressive regimes ever. If the Tzar was branded as an "Oppressor of the Masses", for his 20 year rule, where Russia did experience, despite numerous setbacks and errors, a growth in GNP, pre-war entrance, and did indeed oppress the people, how much more did the communist leaders do, Lenin with his "War Communism", and Stalin with "Stalinism"? Lenin was heading the way of China is today because he saw Communism couldn't triumph in one country alone (And thus had to crush any opposition to establish his own original regime.). The only way for Communism to work would be for Capitalism to disapear altogether, which isn't happening. I would be a Communist as well if I thought that Communism was viable from a financial and welfare points of view for my people, but in good truth communism isn't. The problem is that Communist leaders enforced an ideology on a people which did not want it altogether and done it so through force, and that is wrong by definition.

I will except that some Soviet leaders didn't care much about the people, but Lenin did, collectivism for example is good, when it works bad it's devastating but when it goes good it's great.
I think it would be better to discuss historical people like we are now belongs in the backroom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

If the Tzar was branded as an "Oppressor of the Masses", for his 20 year rule, where Russia did experience, despite numerous setbacks and errors, a growth in GNP, pre-war entrance, and did indeed oppress the people, how much more did the communist leaders do, Lenin with his "War Communism", and Stalin with "Stalinism"?

---

Russia's GDP knew a much larger growth under Lenin and Stalin than under most of the Tzars' rule. USSR would never have become the 1st/2nd military power on earth otherwise.
Not to say that communism is awesome and what not, but on a purely economical and social basis, it wasn't worse than what have been done previously in Russia.

But yeah, overall, neither Stalin nor Che Guevara are worth being mentioned in this topic. I'm more relunctant about Lenin, because I think he really wanted to improve things and wasn't a complete power-hungry dictator. I completely understand the symbol represented by Che Guevara, but the man himself was an incompetent idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Russia's GDP knew a much larger growth under Lenin and Stalin than under most of the Tzars' rule. USSR would never have become the 1st/2nd military power on earth otherwise.
Not to say that communism is awesome and what not, but on a purely economical and social basis, it wasn't worse than what have been done previously in Russia.

But yeah, overall, neither Stalin nor Che Guevara are worth being mentioned in this topic. I'm more relunctant about Lenin, because I think he really wanted to improve things and wasn't a complete power-hungry dictator. I completely understand the symbol represented by Che Guevara, but the man himself was an incompetent idiot.

---

Under Lenin? Under Lenin, Russia's GDP fell to its lowest ever. And indeed you are right. But forget not that you're comparing Communism to Tzarist Feudalism.

It is known that GDP growth under Stalin post-WW2 was made and sustained from an economic point of view, far beyond the sustainable growth percentage, which eventually over time led to great deficiencies and to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Emperor Julian - i love the fact he tried to bring back Paganism even though he died in battle and failed.

Shakespeare...he was so full of wit!

I'd have to say Khalid ibn al-waleed. need I say more?

Willem III, Stadtholder of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Gelderland, Overijsel and the generaliteit. King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland. Champion of Protestant europe and arch enemy of his most christian majesty Louis XIV.

I have two. Both for the same reason.

Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

Lord Arthur Wellesley, The Duke of Wellington.

Both because they beat the "BEST" Generals of their time. Hannibal for Scipio and Napoleon for Wellington. Both are overshadowed and forgotten by the men they defeated.

The average person probably couldn't tell you who Hannibal was these days, but for those who can, the majority couldn't tell you who defeated him.

If you go to Waterloo, it looks like a shrine dedicated to Napoleon. Wellington is barely mentioned in any of the monuments or literature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scipiosgoblin

I have two. Both for the same reason.

Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

Lord Arthur Wellesley, The Duke of Wellington.

Both because they beat the "BEST" Generals of their time. Hannibal for Scipio and Napoleon for Wellington. Both are overshadowed and forgotten by the men they defeated.

The average person probably couldn't tell you who Hannibal was these days, but for those who can, the majority couldn't tell you who defeated him.

If you go to Waterloo, it looks like a shrine dedicated to Napoleon. Wellington is barely mentioned in any of the monuments or literature.

---

Scipio might be less know, but surely Wellington is remembered? Especially the Brits'll know him, and even him a larger role than he actually deserves for Waterloo.

Pericles.

Fantastic politician. He perfectly knew the strength and weakness of democracy

Actually after thinking about it, I can't decide on my favorite personality between Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson. Each spoke brilliantly and passionately. Can't stop reading either.

Eisenhower. Great man. If not for his military accomplishments, but also his terms as President of the US. Plus his Military-Industrial Complex Speech.

My most favorite pal in history always was frederick II (stupor mundi). He was one of the smartest rulers in the middle ages, wrote books and tried to solve the problem between muslims and christianity by peacefull means. He was way ahead in time of his own people and thus failed.
This man was one of the few rational kings who tried to explain things by logic and research rather then solve the worlds riddles by pointing out to god.

Can't believe that no-one has mentioned Gaius Julius Caesar (Divi Filius) Augustus.

It takes some doing to take an unstable democracy (if only nominally) and forge it into the instrument of one man. The fact that he did it without anyone noticing was a bonus....

Seriously the man was a political genius, and managed (with the help of Agrippa) to win several wars and defeat all comers over the course of about 15 years. At his death, the Principate was well underway and his chosen successor, Tiberius took over without a murmur (except for the suspected murder of his supposed co-heir... the less said about that the better...).

Can I change my vote to Jesus?

Nobunaga Oda, one of the most innovative minds to come out of the 17th century.


If not him, Gilles de Rais, nothing beats being one of the most prolific serials killers of all time. Eighty to two hundred people, wow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio

It takes some doing to take an unstable democracy (if only nominally) and forge it into the instrument of one man. The fact that he did it without anyone noticing was a bonus....

---

That's exactly why I'd never pick him as my favourite. And exactly why I picked Eisenhower, as he warned against such things happening in the US.

But, each to their own.

I'd have to make a list of mine. It isn't in any particular order, mind you, in spite of it being numbered.

1) Otto von Bismarck. I don't always agree with his methods (or, more accurately, I don't like them being applied today to promote a United Europe - but different times must be judged differently), but he was an absolutely brilliant statesman, a true master of the art.

2) Helmuth von Moltke the Elder. The greatest military mind of his day, and certainly in the top ten of any list of European military leaders.

3) Hans Oster/Wilhelm Canaris. Enigmatic, beautiful minds, and true German heroes. The account of the interrogation of Canaris showed his outstanding mind - the amount of false trails, contradictory information, and traps he laid to confound the Nazis were marks of sheer genius.

4) Sir Isaac Brock. Not necessarily an exceptional military mind - he could be far too impetuous - he was nonetheless brave and a heroic figure in his own right.

5) Konrad Adenauer. He was, at least in part, responsible for Germany's return as a power. I am personally indebted to him for some of the things he did. The only problem I had with him was his committment to European unity.

6) Benjamin Disraeli. What a guy.

7) Golda Meir. A leader I very much look up to. Pity she was on the left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

I'd have to make a list of mine. It isn't in any particular order, mind you, in spite of it being numbered.

1) Otto von Bismarck. I don't always agree with his methods (or, more accurately, I don't like them being applied today to promote a United Europe - but different times must be judged differently), but he was an absolutely brilliant statesman, a true master of the art.

2) Helmuth von Moltke the Elder. The greatest military mind of his day, and certainly in the top ten of any list of European military leaders.

3) Hans Oster/Wilhelm Canaris. Enigmatic, beautiful minds, and true German heroes. The account of the interrogation of Canaris showed his outstanding mind - the amount of false trails, contradictory information, and traps he laid to confound the Nazis were marks of sheer genius.

4) Sir Isaac Brock. Not necessarily an exceptional military mind - he could be far too impetuous - he was nonetheless brave and a heroic figure in his own right.

5) Konrad Adenauer. He was, at least in part, responsible for Germany's return as a power. I am personally indebted to him for some of the things he did. The only problem I had with him was his committment to European unity.

6) Benjamin Disraeli. What a guy.

7) Golda Meir. A leader I very much look up to. Pity she was on the left.

---

Very interesting list... :2thumbsup:

I like EMFM idea I can't name just one

1. Andrew Jackson-Set precedent for the republic of the common man. Granted the common man was white but he set everything into motion.

2. Sam Houston- Ardent Texan and ardent unionist, spit in the confederates face and never wavered in his love for Texas or America

3. George Patton- The right amount of jingoism and leadership. Quintessentially American

4. Juan Seguin- Texas patriot, who later was expelled from both Texas and Mexico because both considered him a spy, only now getting his due.

5. Winston Churchill-The stiffest lip and very quotable.

6. Fredrick Douglas-Amazing forward thinker, had America figured out before anyone else

7. John Adams- A founding father who put his principles to work time and again, vastly underrated as a patriot and a president.

8. Giuseppe Garibaldi-Italian who put aside personal glory and pride so he could see a unified Italy, Truly a strong man.

The Marquis de Sade. Completely nuts he's a riot to read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

The Marquis de Sade. Completely nuts he's a riot to read.

---

you think the man who gave his name to "sadism" is cool?
:inquisitive:

but yes, he is qquite a riot to read:clown:

Pyrrhus of Epirus.

Despite being one of the few generals to beat the Roman legions during the republican era, he just doesn't get the same respect as ol Hannibal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lenin96

I will except that some Soviet leaders didn't care much about the people, but Lenin did,

---

It's interesting to me how Lenin is, for some reason, often remembered as some kind of Old Major figure - some kind of great visionary who had his vision distorted by Stalin. In reality, he was pretty ruthless. His policy of War Communism for example, (arguably) resulted in, iirc, over 5 million deaths.

Yeah, Lenin wasn't really a nice guy. But unlike Stalin, whose murders were motivated by sheer paranoia and lust for power, Lenin's were motivated by the will to create a socialist republic.

At the end of the day, the result is the same, but the motivations weren't. Lenin always said in his writings that a socialist revolution would likely be bloody, and that revolutionnaries shouldn't be afraid to be ruthless with their opponents.
That's actually why Marxists rejected any idea of moderate socialism.

As for adding a new character here, I'd say Thomas Paine and Condorcet. Both of them were men of the Enlightnement, who tried to create a new, progressist society, without killing millions in the process.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Meneldil
Yeah, Lenin wasn't really a nice guy. But unlike Stalin, whose murders were motivated by sheer paranoia and lust for power, Lenin's were motivated by the will to create a socialist republic.

At the end of the day, the result is the same, but the motivations weren't. Lenin always said in his writings that a socialist revolution would likely be bloody, and that revolutionnaries shouldn't be afraid to be ruthless with their opponents.

---

The way to hell is paved with good intentions, or so they say.