Pathetic Historical Characters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by General Appo

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.

---

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 more
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

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.

---

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.

I agree completely about Henry VIII and Quintus Sertorius, BTW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

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.

I agree completely about Henry VIII and Quintus Sertorius, BTW.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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 Matinius Brutus

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.

---

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.

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

: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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

---

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:

---

2 - Richard Cromwell.

---

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by General Appo

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.

---

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 Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

---

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

As a politician I believe the Roman opinion was that he was a poor speaker, rather than a bad operator.

---

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 Justiciar

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.

---

By this you mean the executive authority? Never really looked at it that way before? Interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Inbreeding.

Somehow, we always see imbreeding as prone to producing children with physical or mental handicaps. However, the chance that a child that is not imbred has a handicap is around 3-4 %. With inbred children, the chance is about 6-7%.

Good example?

Kleopatra VII

---

That's true, but only in the first generation of inbreeding. If you repeat it generations after generations, the percentage raise uglily.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Che Roriniho

ummm...
Trajan - Roosevelt

Diocletian - JFK

Constantine - Richard Nixon

Dubya - Romulus Augusulus

---

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 Marcus Ulpius

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.

---

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 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?

---

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 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.

---

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.

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

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.

---

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.

Also the Temple of Artemis at Ephesius (sp?)was destroyed ijn a mob led by Saint John Chrysostom, so it's not entirely unsolicited.