Favorite Historical figure?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nokhor

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on

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

---

No problem with you disagreeing with me, thats the timeless beauty of the various shades of grey in pionts of perspective I was referring to, and yes I do know the basic drill about the various sects of Judasim. Thanks too for the reply, you filled in some blanks in my own knowlege, which is for me the best part about these forums. The mantenance of ignorance is one of the ways greedy bastards have always used to manipulate we normal people into fighting their wars for them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on

You mention a "recognized governing power". Recognized ......... The solution lies in education, not war, not revolution, nothing to do with bloodshed at all.

---

Can't argue with any of that cause most of its pretty spot on. Lets hope education wins through, we get some decent world leaders and the Holy Land finally gets some peace after the last 5000 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SCRIBE

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

His family were Jehova's Witnesses. Ike himself became a Presbyterian during his Presidency.

---

I had no idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishArmenian

I had no idea.

---

There is some interesting 'early' stuff on the Eisenhower Library website, including biographical details and letters from young Ike to his family.

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

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

Wellington, Churchill and Jesus Christ.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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

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

---

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

Point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miloshus

-A man who murderd 50.000.000 people with his decisions

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

-A man who was before war an artist

---

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

Quote:

---

-A man who is a sinonim for a devil himself

---

Check the thesaurus buddy.

Quote:

---

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

---

How is that shameful?

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Robert E. Lee A good commander and seemingly moral one.

---

How is fighting for slavery anything close to resembling morality?

Quote:

---

you don't see blatant racism as often

---

Suuuuuure.

Quote:

---

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

---

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julian the apostate

stevin hawking

---

He's, err, alive.

No need to make him history yet. ~D

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

He's, err, alive.

No need to make him history yet. ~D

---

The only reason I have left out Chuck Norris.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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

---

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

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