Who's your favourite person, from throughout the history of the world, and why? :book:
Printable View
Who's your favourite person, from throughout the history of the world, and why? :book:
Zhuge Liang. The only one who reaches near him is Alexander, and all others below them are very far away. While Alexander was an incredibly successful general, I find Zhuge Liang incredibly more complete. He dominated the Art of War, crushed his enemies numerous times against the odds, was a through diplomat, an inventor, a philosopher, an orator. A master of warfare, politics and astrology. He was brilliant in every way. Noone can match him, noone can reach him.
Andrew Jackson. The epitome of America
Hannibal Barca. He may not have been up there with Alexander for Grand Strategy but in my humble opinion the best tactical general that has ever lived. Unfortunately, Hannibal the man is somewhat of a mystery as the only information we have of him comes from his enemies, the Romans.
Zhuge Liang's abilities was highly exaggerated in the novel, but everything you said about him was true to some extend, the guy was quite a poet as well. I would like to nominate Kangxi Emperor of China, possibly one of the greatest ruler the world has known.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
I base myself on not solely on the Romance. Thus why I linked to his "historical" biography, not the Romance one. I also read his Art of War, which in my opinion, is quite superior to that of Sun Tzu.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quintus.JC
I certainly, do not believe he called the South-East winds. >_>
That was just a lucky Zhou Yu, knowing a fisherman who was his friend and the fisherman told him the South-East winds would arrive in a number of days.
Julius Caesar. The man was a living god.
Emperor Napoleon I. Few other people have had an entire period of human history named after them.
Ceasar and Napoleon, only for the fact that they ended democracy to supposedly protect it.
Add to that the fact they were good generals, orators and politicians, as well as overly megalomaniacs, and here you are, you have the most interesting historical figures ever.
Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon.
Let’s debate this one. I know he is your choice and you are welcome to it, but Old Hickory was not exactly a role model for American Youth!Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
He was vengeful, conniving, underhanded, & brutal! And those could be said to be his good points.
His political excesses were legendary. It was by his urging that the Indian Removal Act was passed and the few good things we think of him doing were all out of selfish motivation…
Are you sure you don’t like Thomas (Stonewall) Jackson just a bit more?
Or Teddy, I mean the man gave a speech after getting shot without any medical attention!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Course Jackson did wait for a man to shoot at a duel, get shot, and then shoot the man dead though his gun malfunctioned on his first pull of the trigger and he had to squeeze it again...
I don't even know how he got the winds, wasn't he supposed to be really good at astrology and deduced that the wind was going to come, like a human weather machine or something like that? Or was it really the fisherman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
It was really a fisherman. He told Zhou Yu that there would be the South-Eastern winds at a certain day. Zhuge Liang, had nothing to do with the event. Same goes for the recieving arrows incident. That was Sun Quan's orders to attack during the fog.
Socrates.
I only thought that perhaps Lone Stare or Perl had confused him into thinking Andy was Tom…Quote:
Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin
Strike may not find Teddy as appealing but instead of Andy Jackson I could offer up another Tennessean, ol’ Sam Huston might not be as bad a choice, though the both of them likely owe more to Tennessee Whisky than Tennessee Breeding.
Zhuge Liang just became less god-like then he had been. :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
Chinggis Kha(a)n.
EDIT: close second is Siddharta Gautama
To be fair, unless he was an metereologist, he would hardly know how fogs and winds appeared and vanished. The fisherman must of had a life long experience for him to know the wind patterns of the river, still that doesn't deny the fact that he was the best strategist ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quintus.JC
Likewise, Liu Bei is depicted in the Romance as the most virtuous and kind of all people, though in reality he was much more 'grey'. For instance, it was Liu Bei himself who ordered the beating of Cao Xing which led to the attack of Lu Bu. The Romance also has Liu Bei look like a weak or mediocre general, while in reality he was far more able in commanding armies than in the Romance.
I mean Andrew Jackson. The man ushered in universal suffrage he was the first "president of the people" He was an arrogant person but such was the nature of early presidents. Adams Jefferson and Adams Jr. were all more wrapped up in themselves more so than Jackson.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
He fought his whole life for the ideal of an America were everyone had a voice. I also like a man who walked the walk as it were he wasn't afirad to back down from a fight and all good leaders need to be able to stand there ground. He also was very principled, stuck to his guns I can respect that.
He also was a loving caring gentleman who adopted an Indian boy. The man came from nothing into everything due to his sheer will.
My heros in American history are not guys like Washington or Hamilton or even FDR. I like guys like Jackson or Patton. Men who instead of finding ways around the wall in front of them went right through it.
Stonewall was a very good general (maybe better than Lee) but not much more.
All I think of that man when I hear the name is the Indian Removal act (Not that I dont know his other history, not in-depth though). Forcing native americans to go from their ancestral homelands to Oklahoma. All the while doing it in nazi fashion, being overly cruel on the long march there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Oklahoma, you ever been there? I grew up there. Not a fun place to be.
I never said the man was perfect but what he did for voters and the democratic process outweighs what he did to the Indians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooks
I have never been to Oklahoma but with good reason, I'm from Texas.
Is that the same guy that used to be a general and commanded American army at New Orleans in the war with UK?
You mean like ignoring the supreme court, his handling of the nulification crisis and the spoils system?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
The spoils system is a pretty weak argument. Every president does that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Winter
What did he do about nullification. I know he didn't agree with SC what did he do wrong?
True, but he was the start of it on a larger and offical scale.
As for nullification, he threatened to use force, and alienated the South, starting (among other factors) the build up to the civil war.
Debatable considering perviously the same guys were running the show.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Winter
If we had a weak willed president the country could have very well split in two right then. While I am a proponent of states rights. A divided union would've probably stayed that way.
My namesake, of course, Ramses II of Egypt. One of the longest reigning king/emperors in history. Personally led troops to victory in battle. Signed the first peace treaty in recorded history. Fathered about one hundred legitimate heirs. Survived to age 90 in an era when 35 was the typical lifespan. Effectively declared himself a god while still living, and was believed in so firmly that by some accounts his subjects were convinced the world would end when he died.
His success was so great that those who followed him tore down his monuments and tried to erase his memory because they could not match his accomplishments. Failing that, they took his name and claimed his deeds for their own. That despite this his name and some small part of his great works still echo down through more than three thousand years of human civilization bears witness to his might.
Look on his works, ye mighty, and despair. (With apologies to Shelley :laugh4:)
:egypt:
I agree with Strike that Andrew Jackson was awesome, but I have to note that the spoils system was removed after Garfield's assassination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
There are ways around those pesky laws. We see it today. It's just not as pronounced.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Not really, the spoils system was candidates giving cushy jobs to people in return for support and their votes, nowadays support is given by companies who want favorable legislation for their business. Are there jobs given to friends and not necessarily the most qualified person, probably, but it is most likely not on the scale that it still qualifies to be considered a continuation of the spoils system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
If your reasons are good enough for you, then they are good enough for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
When we speak of Humans, we all have flaws and some just need to be overlooked at times.
Informed choice was all I was after.
Again some new unwelcoming fact, I always did knew Liu Bei was a greyed out character but still prefered to remember him as a true peoples' man, I still hopes that he does displayed some virtue in real life that correspond to the novel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
Still thanks for the facts. :bow:
Same fellow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Though to be picky, Pakenham's defeat at New Orleans occurred after the official end of the war, but before either Jackson or Pakenham could be notified.
Caesar and Napoleon. I will emulate their success in the near future.
He wasn't as famous as the Romance makes out of him, for instance:Quote:
Originally Posted by Quintus.JC
- There was no beatiful Peach Garden Oath. They just swore brotherhood normally.
- He played a very minor role in the Yellow Turban rebellion. Hardly could he have saved an Imperial Governor such as Dong Zhuo.
- It wasn't Zhang Fei who whiped the Imperial Emmissary asking for a bribe for the eunuchs. Liu Bei did it himself.
- Tao Qian (Xu Governor) didn't offer his land to Liu Bei. It was Mi Zhu who did it, along with Chen Deng and Kong Rong. He also never offered Xuzhou to Lu Bu.
- He never was acknowledged as the "Imperial Uncle", despite this nickname being widely used in the novel after the audience with Emperor Xian.
- Certainly did not rely on Xu Shu to defend Xinye from Cao Ren and Li Dian. He arranged and carried out the defense himself. (Which worked brilliantly, imo)
- It was after this time that Zhuge Liang was employed into Liu Bei's service, at Xu Shu's recomendation and while Xu Shu still served Liu Bei. The Three Visits did exist though.
- Also defeated Xiahou Dun at Xin Ye, not Zhuge Liang nor Xu Shu (Who had already left Liu Bei, anyhow).
- Had than three sons and some daughters (Which were, unfortunately, captured by Cao Chun at Changban Slope)
- Zhou Yu's attempted assassination at Chi Bi battle was non existent. Although Sun Quan was advised by Zhou Yu and Han Ze to keep Liu Bei hostage during his visit to Wu, no such attempt was made, and Liu Bei left without incident.
- Huang Zhong was not chief commander of Shu’s Hanzhong campaign. Liu Bei was (Once again, brilliantly conducted).
- Commanded between 40–80,000 troops at Yiling; far fewer than the 700,000 or so mentioned in the novel. Wu on the other hand had several hundred thousands. It is magnificent to see Liu Bei, already an Emperor and unused to commanding armies, beat Wu's armies repeatedly and force them on the defensive with a gigantic inferior army ratio.
All in all, Liu Bei was really an ordinary warlord. Still he is my favourite character of the Romance, with Zhuge Liang behind him as a close second. Guan Yu is too incredibly over-rated. He might be by far the most overrated character of the entire novel:
- Didn't kill Hua Xiong (Dong Zhuo's uber-like general), Sun Jian's troops did that themselves.
- Did not give specifics terms of surrender to Cao Cao (Shocking isn't it? Cao Cao had just probably murdered his own sworn brothers, and he joined unregretably. No more noble conduct)
- Never killed Wen Chou (Yuan Shao's uber-like general), who actually died in battle with Cao Cao after falling for a plot.
- Guan Yu did not ‘traverse five passes’ and ‘slay five generals’. Cao Cao admired his honor and sense of duty, and allowed him to leave. In majority, the characters that appeared in this novel event were fictional.
- After Cao Cao was throughly defeated in Chibi, Guan Yu did not meet with and spare Cao Cao at Huarong (Again, no more honourable conduct).
- Did not ‘fight with and release’ Huang Zhong. Han Xuan and Huang Zhong surrendered of their own accord.
-Did not plan to duel Ma Chao when he was promoted. Simply sent a letter asking how they compared (No honourable pride and sense of demonstrating he was uber-leet, since he wasn't and would probably have been pwned by Ma Chao should any such event had happened; Zhang Fei didn't duel Ma Chao either).
- In the novel Lü Meng feigned illness to trick Guan Yu. Historically, Lü Meng was truly ill (Poor Guan Yu, tricked by a non-existent trick. >_>)
- The flooding of Fan Castle was not Guan Yu’s stratagem. It was a natural occurrence (Guan Yu had no clue it was going to happen).
- Guan Yu was executed without Sun Quan's knowledge or consentment (The poor guy :P)
Many more nifty things haven't happened in real history. :P
While I do agree that he is overrated novelwise, Guan Yu's martial prowess was outstanding. Slew Yan Liang, defeated Pang De and Yu Jin, as well as his very helpful service at Chang Ban. Also, don't forget that Chen Shou didn't make the best Shu biographies, after all, he was serving the Jin. He had to make the biographies short and discreet, one wrong word and he could have been undone, my point is that Guan Yu is in fact underrated, historically and not novelwise. Although he was arrogant and blinded by his pride, he was a far better warrior than he was as a general. In addition, He was one of the most feared warriors of his time, both Cao Cao's, Sun Quan's and Lu Meng's Sanguozi biographies lay claim to this. I think there are two possible explanations for this, and that is either Chen Shou did not record everything Guan Yu did, or Guan Yu really was an overrated, arrogant bastard. We never know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
Anyway, my favorite historical figures would be Khalid ibn Al Walid and Napoleon Bonaparte.
General Lettow-Vorbeck
-Mostly due to his solid (guerilla) campaign against the English and actually winning, even though the odds were not in his favor.
General Sherman
- Due to his total war ideas
Saladin
Sun Tzu
Favourite personality, as in most interesting that defined an era, probably Alexander the Great - there was a lot more to him than simply being a great general. I mean how many people could claim to be personally educated by Aristotle?
Jan Karol Chodkiewicz - polish hetman (highest military rank) - for way he defeated Poland into XVII century and Casimir the Great - polish king who changed our country for centuries.
Maybe its a bit nationalistic but I like them. Their influence was visible for many years - into whole Eastern Europe.
Julius Caesar
Seems that we both share a fascination with the Romance of the three kingdoms. Guan Yu was massively overrated, the fact that he is worshiped as a deity in China in these days just shows it entirely. I myself is a big fan of Cao Cao, reading the novel would get you an antaganising opionion about him, but the real Cao Cao was much different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
Ben Franklin
To French.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Just because he is overrated, doesn't mean his achievements should be overlooked. It is also a common misconception that Guan Yu is worshiped as a deity by anyone outside the Sanguo era, Kwan Gong however, is still a deity and referred to as the "God of War". And Cao Cao is also my favorite, I'm a Wei-ist when it comes to the Three Kingdoms. But didn't Cao Cao execute one of his men in Guan Du just to strike fear into his troops?Quote:
Originally Posted by Quintus.JC
Not at Guan Du. If I'm not mistaken it was either when he was fighting Yuan Shu or Lu Bu. My bet'd go to the former. You mean when his troops were out of supplies, and he "borrowed his head", as an excuse that supplies had dwindled due to the executed man's fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fahad I
I find Cao Cao in the novel to be a dumbass many times. Especially with those lines where one of his advisors'd go like: "What is your plan, my Lord?", and Cao Cao'd go: "No, what is your plan?" then the advisor would reply coming up with some clever scheme and Cao Cao'd say "It's exactly what I thought!" >_> Anyway I already played the Three Kingdoms game many years ago (Like, 8 years ago), making me a grizzled veteran, only known by the hardcore veterans of that game. Later, I wondered around the RTK Sims such as this one, but it is in the process of beginning a new game. I've been around the 3 Kingdom era for a great while.
Of course, as I well said, my favorite person is Zhuge Liang, by far and wide.
I have witnessed many arguments over Guan Yu's achievements or not, and I've gradually despised him.
Anyway, here is a nice glimpse of what I think about him:
Quote:
Whilst it was my intention to bow out of statting for the time being, I shall have to comment here. How in the world do you believe Guan Yu deserves those increases in statistics, especially politics? Guan Yu was defeated far more often then twice, in actuality his only major victory was against Yu Jin. Yu did not hold off Xu Huang, the latter came to reinforce Cao Ren was decimated Guan Yu with a peasant militia despite Yu having an elite Shu army under his command. Huang was a superior commander by far however only a fool would lose when all the odds happened to fall at his footsteps.
Elsewhere although the novel attempts to redeem Guan Yu's reputation at Xuzhou, he was defeated by overwhelming odds against Cao Cao and historically surrendered with little hesitation and no three conditions. Furthermore prior to this I recall him having lost to Zhang Liao. Lest we have neglected his arrogance nearly allowing Huang Zhong to slay him dead and not to mention Zhong's ability to hold him back
Beyond the aforementioned victory over Yu Jin, Guan Yu had no actualy victories that I ca recall where someone else did not play an immense role in securing said victory; even when against Pang De, Guan Yu's foolishness nearly saw his demise had Guan Ping not dashed forward to interfere. Definitely keep his lead in the seventies, he was an above average commander at best.
Guan Yu was an absolute disaster as a Governor and often credited for what led to the strife and inevitable showdown between the Kingdoms of Wu and Shu. Initially his role in Xuzhou was exceptionally limited as Liu Beu lost territory about as often as it rains in Vancouver; moreover Bei's friendship and lack of capable officers would also attest to Yu's appointment. Afterwards in Jingzhou, it was Zhuge Liang who held office until the acquisition of Yizhou, although I believe Liang may have left immediately after the death of Pang Tong.
Nevertheless practically everything besides his attack on Fan Castle was as I mentioned earlier, a disaster. In the novel he refused to give Sun Quan territory that had been already agreed upon by Liu and Sun and stubbornly remained so, even threatening Lu Su with execution if he not leave; all until Zhuge returned to Jingzhou to force his hand. In history Lu Su merely defeated an unsuspecting Guan Yu although not directly. Continuing along these lines Guan Yu openly insulted not only the Wu Kingdom, yet their liege, Sun Quan as well; to the point he refused a political marriage - which would have strengthened the alliance and redeemed his previous indiscretions - by once more insulting Quan and his son. His arrogance turned violent when he raided the supplies of the Wu encampment to aid his own food supply.
All in all Guan Y u gave Wu every excuse in existence to declare Wu, whether or not it was the correct course of action. I might as well deal with his Intelligence here as well, Yu had a single ploy become successful and it was novel only I believe, not to mention LGZ steals away some of Yu's credit when he makes various notions of Yu Jin's own idiocy to follow sound advice and to thwart his own officer's (Pang De) near guaranteed victory due to an insecurity regarding reward. This all thoroughly works against Guan Yu's intelligence and again in the novel Yu is humiliated in a debate - despite receiving a poem of valor - by Lu Su. Of course I close this portion of his statistics by mentioning Lu Xun and Lu Meng playing him like a complete fool by pattering his arrogance, which subsequently led to his demise.
Guan Yu was a respected opponent however few outside of Shu and even those within actually held him in high accord on a personal level. He was arrogant and often made certain those beneath him understood he was their superior. I cite the example of his complaints when Ma Chao and Huang Zhong were granted the title of Tiger Generals. He was only appeased when Zhuge Liang made it clear he was to be seen as their superiors.
Quote:
few outside of Shu and even those within actually held him in high accord on a personal level.
His administrative, political, and leadership skills weren't that great, but he was a respected warrior at the time, and he probably killed more than the SGZ credits him for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fahad I
I didn't bother finishing the first volume of the novel, I didn't enjoy it at all, especially after finding out about its historical inaccuracies.Quote:
I find Cao Cao in the novel to be a dumbass many times. Especially with those lines where one of his advisors'd go like: "What is your plan, my Lord?", and Cao Cao'd go: "No, what is your plan?" then the advisor would reply coming up with some clever scheme and Cao Cao'd say "It's exactly what I thought!" >_> Anyway I already played the Three Kingdoms game many years ago (Like, 8 years ago), making me a grizzled veteran, only known by the hardcore veterans of that game. Later, I wondered around the RTK Sims such as this one, but it is in the process of beginning a new game. I've been around the 3 Kingdom era for a great while.
Agreed, compared to the other strategists of the time. It's a shame his successor was not as talented...Quote:
Of course, as I well said, my favorite person is Zhuge Liang, by far and wide.
Not at all. Jefferson was too frenchified. Franklin merely enjoyed the .... er.... companionship of a number of frenchwomen....had to keep up his....esprit de corps. :wiseguy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Custer, the guy was funny, and he was a good leader(though a little arrogant at somepoints *cough* battle of little *cough* bighorn*cough*)
I believe Jiang Wei was a great strategist of his own time as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fahad I
Heck, the administration Kongming left to Liu Shan was comprised of great men (Jiang Wan, Jiang Wei, Fei Yi, Dong Yun, etc). Only when these started dieing, and incompetent men took their place, the corruption in Shu (Which was already high by the time of the Northern Expeditions) rose gigantically. But Shu never had a chance against Wei, even with Zhuge Liang. I believe the defining moment was the death of Pang Tong. If Pang Tong hadn't died, I'd reckon things would have turned out differently. If Zhuge Liang attacked from Jing (Which is hard to believe that Zhuge Liang would lose to Wu) and Pang Tong from Yi, and Sun Quan sent his men through Hefei, something of notice could be achieved. Whereas isolated attacks by Zhuge Liang, through difficult terrain, against an Empire far more populous and productive than Shu, was doomed from the start. Only Zhuge's remarkable talent managed to put Wei on the defensive.
Vladimir Lenin, he made the U.S.S.R and Soviet Communism.
well... there's more to it than that... but I'd agree. It's more soviet socialism but none the less...Quote:
Originally Posted by lenin96
Ernesto "Che" Guevara.
the name kinda gives it away... just realised...:sweatdrop:
The man was amazing... did more to help the peoples of the world, after cuba, went to the Congo to inspire revolution with the guerilla troops there, after that failed... he hid in europe. Then came back to Cuba and then to Bolivia where the capitalist dogs made a mockery of his death.
But others might disagree, there are clips of Che helping out in factories, and he was a general (sort of). He shot himself in the foot literally (at the bay of pigs invasion), dedicated himself to the cause. Disliked the soviet attitude especially to the Cuban Missile Crisis (ah Khrushchev...). Ironically through his death, he has become an icon for the revolution... which people sadly use without knowing his full story. He was an excellent orator, cared for the people, he was a doctor and had a huge library behind him from Marx to Cervantes...
Overall, a modern day hero and a symbol that the cause of communism will never die. :charge:
And he also loooooved ripping people's fingernails out! Great guy he was... :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by The New Che Guevara
Don't forget the mass killing of political dissidents and blacks. What a great guy!Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Or overcrowding political prisoners into spaces meant for less than half of their number! Or getting personal pleasure from ordering or carrying out executions!Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
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...Quote:
Disliked the soviet attitude especially to the Cuban Missile Crisis
Zhuge Liang did not entrust Jiang Wei with anything, at least not as much as the others you mentioned. He was so obsessed with something he couldn't achieve. Jiang Wei became obsessed with the attack, perhaps for fame as the popular theory proclaims or another reason, he exhausted the state, drove the people to revolt and failed his duty to the court and his officers by failing to throw weight behind Zhang Yi and Qiao Zhou. The death of Pang Tong was a great loss, but the fate of Shu was not entirely at his hands, recall Shu's incompetent officers and unnecessary invasions which cost them dearly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
Well that was odd, several conquerer, facists and all round killers are named without objection (cept STFS's one) the second a communist is named several posters question the choice... if i didn't know better i may suggest some kind of bias is present...
I think it was more the rationale for his choice, not the choice itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
For example, I've recently been doing as much reading as I can on Walter Model - German general, committed Nazi, and an all around bastard to everyone around him.
His martial skills and devotion to the causes he believed in fascinates me, but I would never portray him as a "hero to the people" or an "amazing man". ~:rolleyes:
Che had some interesting, and even admirable qualities about him, but our own Che’s description was a total whitewashing.
I'm sorry, where are the fascists?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Gandhi.
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 Evil_Maniac From Mars
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by lenin96
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by scipiosgoblin
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.