Printable View
In this topic you write the name of your favourite historical character.
Since i start the topic i'm going first :dizzy2:
My favourite historical character is Alexander of Macedon (The Great). I like him cuz he was a briliant conqeror, he destroyed the Persian empire so easyly. His empire streched from Greece to the Indus river in India. He was a great man who knew how to win a battle, even outnumbered greatly. He died at the age of 32 (nearly 33) acomplishing more than anyone.
And my is Gaius Julius Caesar! :duel:
He also knows how to defeat even 400000 barberians, which is far more powerful than persians!
Also Alexander has died by his death, than Caesar was murdered (:furious3: )
Crikey, so many candidates - Alfred the Great, Wellington...
My favourite general is Belisarius, but my favourite character is Alexius Comnenus, one of the greatest Byzantine emperors, taking over just after the disaster of Manzikert.
Caesar is probably my favourite too. Others are Peter the Great, Alexander the Great, Aleksandr Nevski, Suvorov.. :yes:
Augustus he brought the pax romana to the Roman Empire and improved it further
Charlemagne and Alexander the Great - because they built as much as they conquered.
Chinggis Khaan.
Reasons:
1) Obviously, a stalwart general.
2) He started from a group of warring tribes, united them, and ended up creating a massive empire from it.
3) Promoted trade, reestablished the silk road, thus reviving European interest in trading for eastern goods, resulting in the discovery of the new world.(where I currently live)
4) Established a policy of diplomatic immunity, going so far as to establish protection for diplomats and traders. It was said that a girl with a bag of gold could go from one end of the empire to the other and be untouched.
Any historical character right? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by d3a7hr0w
Well, I've got three!
Walt Disney -- for making cartoons cartoons and leaving the world some of the most precious classic cartoons there is. Did I mention cartoons? Thanks to him many a childhood memory are cherished by many a person worldwide. Precioussss.
This choice is motivated mainly by my speculation that his cartoons probably helped prevent the creation of many a "conventional" megalomaniac historical "heroes!" :laugh4:
John Lennon -- for sheer hippie awesomeness. Make love not war baby! (And get rich while at it). A Brit who's probably the best American ever. His historical importance is as the representation of the late 60's - 70's spirit, an age where America changed for the better.
Osamu Tezuka -- God, literally, of Manga. The first and the best and unbested. People remember his more childish works and his "kiddie" art style but the truth is that he is an extraordinary artist whose mastery of the art form he created is simply complete; some of his more philosophical works, Buddha, or Phoenix, for example, are incredibly moving all-encompassing works and you're left wondering how the tears from that Astroboy-ish face can move you so. I choose this guy just because. Or you can guess the reason.
*deliberately avoiding conventional choices of generals and statesmen
Jan III Sobieski (ancestral patriotism!)
Henry V of England
&
Martin Luther
et. al...:egypt:
I think my favourite historical characters would be Herodotus and Xenophon.
Herodotus because every time I have read The Histories I can imagine myself sat in the agora listening to the man telling us all of the strange people over the seas, of the one eyed aspasians and the lands in the north where the sky is full of bees!!:book:
Xenophon because of the march of the 10,000. His history of the greek mercenaries who fought for Cyrus against the Persians, who managed to keep themselves together and get home after Cyrus was killed in battle and their generals were murdered. The fact that they fought their way back through hundreds of miles of enemy territory when by all rights they should have ended up slaughtered or slaves impresses me greatly.
Xenophon also because of some of his other writings, namely the Art of Horsemanship, and the Art of Cavalry Command, both well worth a read if you are into horse riding. I believe the Art of Cavalry Command is still used by the British mounted police as a handbook for tactics.(feel free to correct me if I am wrong:laugh4: )
Are we talking about the same Julius Caesar here? The first roman general to lose a WHOLE legion in an ambush? The same general who fled from his own troops? The general who handled night-fights so badly he was adviced never to attempt it again (fun fact: in his first night-fight he was ONLY saved because the enemy overestimated him, they thought NO ONE could be so stupid so they assumed he had an ambush prepared and thus didnt follow through with their counter-attack).Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge
Caesar was a good politician and MASTERED the art of propaganda, but a great general he was not.
Genghis Khan however... or Alexander the great.... for me it's a toss up who'd be the greatest historical character, but to name them in the same therad as caesar seems insulting;)
Hmm, that's a tough one! I'd say probably Bertrand du Guesclin for the warrior type. Ugly and stout, he managed to live a long life, fighting all the way through it and is one of the only generals to be buried with the Kings of France in St Denis. Quite a feat for the times!
This was true of the Duke of Wellington also, who detested night-time engagements because of an early disaster. Losing a battle doesn't necessarily make you a bad general, though I agree Julius Caesar is not on a par with some of the other generals mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Subutai, pehaps the best general of the middle ages.
With out wanting to court controversy I would say Rommell.
A GENERAL (not a nazi) who was well respected by both sides.
Granted he fought in the Desert where there was little "collateral" damage in the way of civillians I but I have always though him a gentleman as well as a general.
Does that sound strange?
rommel was damn good...
montgomery, his enemy, is heavily overestimated though... He only won against rommel when the german armies were next to non-existant and heavily outmanned and outgunned.
Montgomery then proceeded to plan operation market garden, one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) military disaster of all times...
Look it up on the web if you havent allready, a fun read:)
St. Vartan: Lead a hopeless force against the Persians, managed to give the Persians a hard time enough to force them to allow Armenians to practice Christianity.
Nerses: Took over for Belisarius well into old age and established the Byzantines in Italy once again.
Smbat Bagaratuni: Lead 40,000 Armenians to victory over 80,000 Arab invaders.
Andranik Toros Ozanian: Lead the Van resistance against the forces aiming to continue the Genocide.
Well, I asked my friend who my favorite should be, and his response was: "Montezuma. He had lots of gold and was a fool." With this advice ringing in my ears, I attempted to think of a REAL ancient hero to idolize...
I'm going to go with Solomon, of Israel. My reasons: whatever your faith, the man was an intelligent ruler, and he did lead the nation of Israel through it's glory period. During his reign they controlled the Middle East religiously, economically, and militarily.
I would choose Genghis Khan, the same preference as greaterkhaan. But my reason is slightly different.
Compare to others, Alexander, Ceasar, Wellingtong etc., the Golden Horde has a very difficult start up. While they are a warrior society, they lack the unity of other countries/cultures. Living in hash condition, with a hasher background (He was without tribe at first, after the death of his father), it's a wonder that Genghis Khan have time and mental capacity to dream of a united Mongols, then goes on to achieve that. I must note that his education would be largely about survival, not about commanding army or leading people, but he managed to learn/rediscover all the necessary skills to build/manage a huge empire.
:idea2:
Well,
interesting, and where did you find this??Quote:
The first roman general to lose a WHOLE legion in an ambush? The same general who fled from his own troops? The general who handled night-fights so badly he was adviced never to attempt it again (fun fact: in his first night-fight he was ONLY saved because the enemy overestimated him, they thought NO ONE could be so stupid so they assumed he had an ambush prepared and thus didnt follow through with their counter-attack).
How do you think he can win war without it, being SUCH outnumbered? 50 000 against 2 000 000 ,ah ?Quote:
Caesar was a good politician and MASTERED the art of propaganda
He inspires his troops like no other, he fight himself in battles (and without horse!).And you think that he is bad general? Pompeius - looser.All knows it.
Genghis Khan, yea, with his hordes it quite difficult not to win.
Alexander? There is any glory in fighting such coward like Darius and his slaves? NO!
Ehmm did everyone forget Hannibal or did i miss him?
Its not every day you cross the alps whit elephants and raid the italian mainland against a far superior force for years. Continuesly outsmart the roman generals and whit revolutionary tactics.
Yes, Scipio had to copy Hannibal's tactics to defeat him in the Battle of Zamas if I remember right :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by matte89
He's certainly one of the great generals of history.
"Hannibal ad portas" indeed.
Keep things civil and fuzzy when debating mass murderers please.
Don't let this discussion get heated or I'll have to cool it down.
Hello everyone. This is my first post. I am enthused to be here - great site, visually and academically.
From a specific point, I don't agree Shieldmaiden. The Battle of Zama displayed nothing each general had done before. But I see where you are coming from. Hannibal led an army that could wheel, lengthen its wings, and deliver flank attacks. As a young officer in Italy, Scipio clearly saw the devastating effects of Hannibal's tactics; he realized the Roman army could not act in seperate units, and fixed this by structuring the maniple into a more flexible unit. He also emphasized individual training of a soldier through arms drill - the mark of every great commander. Moreover, he remedied the Roman handicap in cavalry, and fixed it through smart diplomacy by procuring the alliance Massinissa and his superb cavalry. The Battle of Cannae illustrated how elastically hinged wings of cavalry could exploit the disorganization of massed infantry created by a brilliant commander. Scipio indeed was affected by this, and went to work; in the end, his success was sublime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shieldmaiden
But Scipio was fortunate he could do all this in Roman territory in Spain, already established for him by the likes of his uncle, father, and Gaius Claudius Nero. When they squared off at Zama, Scipio may have neutralized the elephants, but his new tactics - those of pinning and outflanking with offensive reserves - were completely thwarted by Hannibal's retention of his third line (his one crack unit composed of his best soldiers), which was held at a further distance than that of his first two lines. Also - and this remains conjectural as the ancients don't help us here - it seems probable (IMHO) that Hannibal used his cavalry in a running fight; this explains why Hannibal's horsemen were vanquished from the get-go (I feel it's nonsense that some of the scattered elephants disrupted only Hannibal's horsemen, and the Roman/Numidian horse sent them fleeing through and around a bunch of disorganized elephants), and why it took so long for Scipio's cavalry to deliver the final blow in Hannibal's rear. After all, the infantry slogfest, which favored Hannibal, went through a major pause for both commanders to regroup. For the first tiome, Hannibal had no chance with his cavalry, and he knew it. He had to try something. Putting the elephants in his rear to counter a blow from behind? No, that's not what elephants are for, and these animals were reputedly of doubtful quality (we read nothing of their use in Africa before Zama). It can be argued that controlling pursuing cavalry is very difficult, particularly given the open terrain at this battle, but that would put into question the capabilities of two very seasoned commanders in Massinissa and Gaius Laelius.
It's impossible to know who had the 'upper hand' in the final infantry clash between Scipio and Hannibal, but it looks like Scipio was creating a 'fixed' situation of containment; but he might have been in trouble unless his horsemen returned soon.
If we go back to the point before the battle's final infantry clash, Scipio's hastati seemed to have got into a precarious position in pursuing the broken lines of Hannibal's poorer troops which had been defeated (partly due to fighting amongst themselves), which Hannibal was forcing out to the flanks of his third line. The hastati were dangerously exposed upon coming face to face with Hannibal and his veterans. Scipio had to relieve them quickly! They didn't follow the scattered mercenaries and Carthaginians because we later find them in the center when Scipio extended his entire body of infantry. They were recalled and Scipio reorganized his line. This is where Roman cohesion and discipline came into play. But Hannibal showed sound judgment by not immediately attacking the isolated hastati, or perhaps supplemented by some principes; this would have entailed committing his last troops into the fight while Scipio had nearly two lines intact, which could now outflank him. Thus he was ready for a pause to reorganize too. The battlefield impeded both armies as it was encumbered with bodies and slippery with blood. An advance had to be carried out carefully.
Scipio now lengthened his line by bringing up his rear ranks on the flanks of the hastati, with the gaps between the maniples closed up. There was now no need for Scipio to keep any intervals between his maniples, as the final blow with Hannibal's third line should be as concentrated as possible, thus no seperate engagements were necessary. Depth was now of lesser value than maximizing his missile power upon Hannibal's last line. This was superb generalship, as Scipio was clearly making allowances for his (presumably) returning cavalry. He needed to be quick because Hannibal, solidifying his deeper line of veterans and remnants of the first two lines (our sources don't tell us, but this almost certainly what he did), would have a slight advantage in a prolonged infantry clash at this point, particularly in the center, where his 'Old Guard' (Polybius mentions they lowered their spears to prevent any mingling of the first two lines' fugitives within his front, thus they were indeed his African spearmen, who had been with him since the beginning) were opposite the hastati.
But Scipio wasn't fighting this last phase to win as quickly as possible, as Hannibal surely was; he was fighting for containment, presuming his cavalry squadrons were coming back. This was a fair presumption, but they weren't back yet! The Carthaginian horse (commander unkown) and Numidians under Tychaeus (Hannibal's ally) seemed to be (somewhat) achieving some success at keeping the superior enemy horses away from the infantry action. Remember, if it wasn't the case, and we'll never know for sure, that Hannibal did not sacrifice his horses to lure Scipio's cavalry units away, then this was not very marked leadership on the part of Scipio, Gaius Laelius, and Masinissa. It would have been similar to Prince Rupert's pursuit at Naseby 1,443 years later, who chased the Parliamentarian dragoons too far, thus his belated return was ineffective to aid the Royalists' cause against Oliver Cromwell.
The infantry clash commenced, with the two great generals at the helm of two great units in a front-to-front slugfest. Again, we can never know for sure who had the 'upper hand' here, but Hannibal's line of his veterans was deeper, so via deductive logic, Scipio would have been broken up. But if he wasn't waiting for the returning cavalry, his dispositions would have been different. He must have smiled from ear to ear when the approaching sound of hoofs and rising dust of the desert was the thundering return of Gaius Laelius and Masinissa. They took Hannibal's veterans in the rear, and rolled them up. It is very ironic that many of the Cannae legions, whom Scipio levied in Sicily some four years earlier, were involved in on of Rome's greatest victory.
Polybius clearly identified Hannibal's handicap at Zama and does give him some praise when he wrote in Book 15.16,
"...But nevertheless to meet each of these advantages Hannibal had shown incomparable skill in adopting at the critical moment all such measures as were in his power and could reasonably be expected to succeed...".
However, a couple of sentences later he writes,
"...For there are times when Fortune counteracts the plans of valiant men, and again at times, as the proverb says, 'A brave man meets another braver yet', as we may say happened in the case of Hannibal..."
Scipio braver than Hannibal? Mmmm. This is where Polybius' bias may slip a bit.
Scipio displayed poised generalship by not trying to do too much, and defending his advantage. Letting things take care of themselves is often the smart thing to do. Scipio was trying to win this battle, not outgeneral Hannibal, in terms of individual wizardry etc. Hannibal tried to wear Scipio down, but Scipio was able to engage Hannibal's veterans with about 3/5 of his infantry hitherto uncommited. But like with many battles of our own civil war (I am an American), or maybe Hastings, Lutzen, Waterloo, or El Alamein, the better general did not necessarily win, in my opinion. I am bias though; I think Hannibal was a remarkable leader, and his plight against such an unyielding foe for nearly two decades, in which he received only grudging support from home (he wasn't banking on any outside support soon after Cannae), was exemplary. B.H. Liddel Hart is incorrect, in my opinion, with his coment on Pg. 118 of Scipio Africanus: Greater Than Napoleon,
"...For a venture of such magnitude, he was worse supported by the Senate than even Hannibal by Carthage..."
The venture Hart is referring to is Scipio's African expedition, and though he couldn't levy from Italy, besides his 7,000 volunteers, never in Rome's history was a general issued blank check, and Sicily, his base of supply etc. and a duck's walk from where he would be campaigning, was never hampered with, in comparison to Hannibal's great venture into Italy. Hannibal took a gamble, and it didn't work, but Hart and others seem to intimate that Hannibal, because he undertook the challenge of building up and defending a broad alliance system, and practically co-ordinated the entire Carthaginian war effort, is somehow guilty of strategic blunders due to the failures of the Carthaginian army and navy in other theaters, and failures to reinforce him from Spain and Africa. Rome indeed had 'command of the sea', but the that hardly carried the advantage it did in modern times. As far as we know, Hannibal never had a Quintus Caecilius Metellus, a fine public speaker in favor of Scipio who prevailed for Scipio's cause against the likes of Fabius and Cato, positioned in the Carthaginian senate to fight for his cause.
"Hannibal was the son of Hamilcar, and a native of Carthage. If it be true, as no one doubts, that the Roman people excelled all other nations in warlike merit, it is not to be disputed that Hannibal surpassed other commanders in ability as much as the Romans surpassed all other people in valour; for as often as he engaged with the Romans in Italy, he always came off with the advantage; and, had not his efforts been paralyzed by the envy of his countrymen at home, he would appear to have been capable of getting the mastery over the Romans. But the jealous opposition of many prevailed against the ability of one. He, however, so cherished in his mind the hatred which his father had borne the Romans, and which was left him, as it were, by bequest, that he laid down his life before he would abate it; for even when he was exiled from his country, and stood in need of support from others, he never ceased in thought to make war with the Romans".
-Cornelius Nepos
Food for thought
Thanks, James ~:)
Caesar's overrated. The Gauls had been crippled entirely by civil war before he took them on. Almost all of the Gallic elite had been destroyed by this civil war beforehand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge
50 000 against 2 000 000 - Where are you pulling these figures from? The Gauls were not united, and Caesar massively exaggerates the number of his enemies for political reasons. Additionally, the Gauls involved were mostly NOT soldiers, but levies.
Anyway,
Top 5, in order
A) Archbishop Manasses of RheimsArchbishop Manasses I of Rheims, if only for reasons of personal amusement.
B) Robert Guiscard
Went from essentially no means to taking all Byzantine territory in Italy and Greece, and terrified Alexius so much that the latter paid the Holy Roman Emperor to attack him. The Holy Roman Emperor was also defeated by Guiscard, even though he was considered unstoppable. The only real times Guiscard seemed to have trouble in campaigns was when he took the field against the equally great Roger of Sicily, his brother.
C) Al-Malik al-Afdal Ibn Badr al-Jamali Shahanshah
Vizier of Egypt at the time of the first crusade. While he is more remembered for failing to drive the crusaders out (I think he underestimated their intentions), it is notable that only under his leadership were Tyre and Jerusalem recaptured from the Turks, and immediately after his death, Fatimid Egypt began to collapse. He was really the only man holding it together.
D) Emperor Basil II
Generally awesome, stingy and competent. Not to mention that noone liked him, which is surprisingly winning.
E) Lysandros
Defeated the entire Athenian fleet at Aegospotami and ended the Peloponnesian war.
Aristotle. He conquered AND categorized the world. His was the longest tyranny, not ending until Bacon came along. And even then he still echoes.
spartan JKM, I just wanted to say that I really appreciated the post!
:2thumbsup:
This seems more of a favourite Historical Warmonger thread than a favourite historical character thread. Of course, you may all be warmongers yourselves who look up to butchers of past times - what do I know? - but I really doubt you are. AntiochusIII is the only one this far who has chosen a character I can, more or less, agree with. It seems like people list their favourites after who caused most deaths and who won the most.
One of my favourite (note: not the favourite; I can't tell since I've never met a historical person, for understandable and logic reasons) characters in history must be Fjodor Dostojevskij. An interesting philosopher and an excellent author
I aggree bigggggg time with that one... stupid Ike... dumb general to choose montgomery over patton....Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Any ways favorite historical charater would have to beeeeeee... Dun Dun Diddle Un...... PATTON.
Just because he believed in reincaranation hated the Ruskies and french and wanted more than anything in the world to fight rommel... pooor patton and his dumb ars driver... crashing into a ditch what a way to go huh?
The warmongers are the more 'interesting', obvious and 'impressive' characters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Innocentius
If we're looking overall, then Psellos and Herodotos are probably my two favourite authors (together with Malaterra, for the sole reason of amusing bias). If we're avoiding mentioning Christ for the sake of not turning this into a backroom thread (as seems to be the eventual result of every single even mildly religious mention), I'll second your mention of Dostoevsky. Omar Khayyam is another interesting one.
My pleasure Kadavar_AV. How about another one?
First, I agree about Aristotle, VAE VICTUS. Perhaps more than any of history's great figures, he probably goes beyond his two great predecessors (Socrates and Plato) as an overall influential great. He took their works further, advancing the philosophy of politics into political science as a branch. But his endeavors were also that of an important scientist (embryology, biology). His disciplined mastery lay in the field of logic - how to solve problem (sure, seems relatively simple now). Perhaps to a wider degree than any other influential great, he cannot be placed within the framework of one particular field. He probably changed the way daily life would evolve through the process of thought more than any other, but we must respect that billions in Asia were influenced and inspired by other great thinkers, such as Buddha and Confucius.
Despite that science is seemingly mankind's most valuable tool for advancement of daily living (in a material sense), it is not a source of comfort (in theory) in the manner religion and philosophy is for most of world's population, an attribute that should be respected. Books by Victor Stenger, Michael Martin, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchins have shown the improbability of a supreme being - but only to people like myslef, who never 'believed in the first place. But we should be aware that the more the world relies on technology, the more susceptible it will become to being 'restricted' - from a certain contingency; technological apparatus etc. can collapse and malfunction. In terms of thought-provoking statements Karl Marx could be the most important individual, as he stated,
"The production of too many useful things results in too many useless people."
I guess every military commander (or monarch who sanctioned an important and successful campaign etc.) who won a 'decisive' battle of history could make such a list. But then it would become a compendium. The same goes for inventors. I listed a few significant inventors, but check this out for the sake of interesting trivia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inventors
I think we should stress 'influence upon people' to narrow it down a little. From the arguable point of view of one individual affecting more people throughout history than any other from his work, it may be the Prophet Muhammed - at least people who know from whom they were affected by. Reform and order seemed hopeless in Arabia at the advent of his coming; there was no centralization to maintain law and order in Arabia before Muhammed, and nothing has been so well unified than when he died. This alone would render him an important figure even if they never left Arabia. Even Sir William Muir, no apologist of Muhammed and Islam, attested this, as he wrote in the early 1860s,
"The first peculiarity, then, which attracts our attention is the subdivision of the Arabs into innumerable bodies, governing by the same code of honour and morals, and exhibiting the same manners, speaking for the most part the same language, but each independent of the others; restless and often at war amongst themselves; and even where united by blood or by interest, ever ready on some insignificant cause to seperate and give way to an implacable hostility. Thus at the era of Islam, the retrospect of Arabian history exhibits, as in the kaleidoscope, an ever-varying state of combination and repulsion, such as had hitherto rendered abortive any attempt at a general union...The problem had yet to be solved, by what force these tribes could be subdued, or drawn to one common centre; and it was solved by Muhammed."
Of course, the followers of Muhammed had to be enticed by other means in the beginning; people wouldn't prostrate immediately under his calling. He achieved this by promising and delivering an equal share of the loot procured from the raiding of caravans of the Banu Quraysh, the main tribe who opposed him at first (and the tribe he was borne out of). Islam had no primary proselytizer of the faith, nor a Doctor of the Church. One appealing characteristic (seemingly) of Islam to its followers was the absence of a formal priesthood. Mullahs and ayatollahs enjoy special respect and authority, but there are no saints acting as mediators between humans and God, thus no mysteries abound of the rites that only priests can perform. The mosque is devoid of anything that resembles an idol. That Christianity required a greater scope for its development than Islam is relevant only when proposing the impact of the individual, in this case Muhammed played a more important role in the development of Islam than any one individual did for Christianity. An explicit point about Muhammed is described lucidly (IMHO) by Thomas Kiernan, in his book The Arabs,
"...It is undoubtedly true to the point of banality that the great movements in history are not created by individuals alone, but by a concatenation of time, events and people. The name of Muhammed, regarded by a sixth of all the people of the world to be the initiator of real history, must be considered the likeliest exception to this rule. More than any other individual in the verifiable past, this man single-handedly inaugurated a new era of world history..."
That was written 30 years ago, thus if this assessment is true, it is now a fifth of the people of the world who feel this way. It is also immaterial that the new faith Muhammed presented was one of 'legitimacy'; what I feel is so material was, simply, his effect. The same applies to the impact of Christianity: it doesn't matter, for the purposes of claiming the unmatched magnitude of the influence that Christianity has had upon the posterity of people down the ages since its nascent stage, that whatever the apostles told people was 'true' or not; what matters, for the purposes of the affect upon people down the ages, is that people believed. That is what I find fascinating: the amazing influence on people. But, sadly, these things never bring peace and conciliation.
Now, I am well aware it's difficult to discuss Muhammed and Islam in a non-contentious context. 'Religious freedom' always seems synonymous with war, a harsh reality Muhammed had to succumb to.
As an agnostic person, I personally don't believe there was an archangel Gabriel who 'spoke' to Muhammed, no more than I believe in any Resurrection of Christ, or a 'Great Commission' being instructed by any diety; what I do know is that the masses of people began believing, and something incredible spurred Muhammed, and his innate abilities were unleashed; many people began accepting his new faith readily because it was plain, simple and direct (it wasn't easy at first). With their help and with an increasing army of men Muhammed returned to Mecca, where he succeeded in converting his relatives and fellowmen. He then sent missionaries to other parts of Arabia in order to convert the entire peninsula to the new faith. His teachings attracted numerous followers because they came from (seemingly) a simple and honest man who never posed as a world teacher. He often told his disciples that he was an ordinary man as they were, teaching them to believe in Allah and His revelations.
I also believe he is almost solely responsible for the creation of the Qu'ran, the most widely referred-to book today. Thus he is unique in history as not only singularly responsible for creating the tenets (belief structure) of the world's second most followed religion, but also 'revealing' its primary text guiding life. He didn't write it - it was compiled less than two decades following his death primarily by Zaid ibn Thabit, with the 'official' copy in book form (mushaf) arriving in c. 655. During the Prophet's lifetime, the Qu'ran was extant in primarily oral form, dependent on memorization. Differences in reading (or interpretation) were obvious, and the only differences (11 of them, apparently) between this standard copy now evinced and its predecessor (which arrived in sporadic written fragments), were the addition of vowel marks (tashkil) and diacritical marks (i'jam), both purely for phonetical distinctions to facilitate understanding (whether it worked for that purpose, it is unkown to me, a non-Arabic person). I point this out because I don't believe the intimations by some non-Muslim 'experts' (Michael Cook, Robert Spencer etc.) that Muhammed has been blown out of proportion, and/or that there is a huge apologue behind his incredible story. Of course, anyone can dispute anything; written words and a consensus (which could mean 51%) are never 'proof' enough for anyone who wishes to not agree with something. I think the tenets of Islam were handed down by Muhammed, and he was also enormously impacting on political and secular levels.
Unless one disputes the tradition handed to us by the Persian/Muslim historian Tabari and others, which is certainly not unreasonable to consider, Muhammed was indeed the driving force behind the Arab conquests, one of the most transforming events in history. Muhammed sent epistles to the neighboring kingdoms inviting them to accept the new faith. His messenger was killed by the Arabs on the Syrian border, an open declaration of war. Khosrau II of Sassanid Persia reputedly tore the letter up; Egypt also refused, but respectfully. Heraclius is reputed to have considered it, but with no support from his council, and Abyssinia (modern southern Sudan, Etrirea and Ethiopia) embraced the new faith. A Muslim army was defeated near Mutah either by Byzantine forces (according to Islamic tradition) or by Arabs living in the Jordanian valley (western sources). Whatever the truth, Muhammed had given orders, three years later, to Usamah ibn Zayd to undertake an expedition to Syria. Usamah, camped around Jorf (near Madina, western Arabia), wanted to return as he felt the departure of his army would endanger Madina etc., but the 1st caliph Abu Bakr replied,
"Who am I to withhold the army that the Holy Prophet had ordained to proceed? Come what may, let Madina stand or fall, the Caliphate live or perish, the command of the Holy Prophet shall be carried out."
Within a year following the Prophet's death, the recalcitrant tribes, who were not necessarily denouncing the new faith but trying to claim their own prophethoods resembling much of the Qu'ran, were subjected within a year(the Ridda Wars, or the War of the Apostasy). Abu Bakr then quickly expanded the sphere of Islamic power beyond what it had been in Muhammed's lifetime. In 634, the Arabs defeated the Byzantines in which for the first time in which they acted as an army rather than seperate and disparate raiding parties; they were no longer solely seeking booty, but contenders for control of settled (albeit weakened) empires. In the amazing conquests that followed, the Arabs carried with them the cultural standard of Islamic faith (of course there was the reason of garnering riches and the basic principal of booty). Their religion and their culture would be both known as Islam. What seperates Islam from other religions, in specific and isolated terms of the affecting significance of its founder, is that it triumphed swiftly during the lifetime of its founder, who created a state which became a vast empire. But let's be clear about the eary conquests: they were enormously successful mainly because of the ideological system the united Arabs had been imbued with, coupled with the fact that the empires they attacked were in a weakened condition (Muhammed and his elite knew how to channel the energies of the Bedouin nomad), but conversions to Islam were not largely coerced or accepted; subjected peoples lived under their own customs under a per capita tax (jizya) and a pact (dhimma). Thus Islamization didn't become prevalant, at least on a substantial level, until the mid-8th century and onwards, when Islam flourished.
The Mongols made no technological breakthroughs themselves, nor created anything new in thought or agriculture. But their conquests passed all the skills of their subjects from one civilization to the next; despite the tribal severely cruel of their conquests (only if opposed), Chinggis Khan and his successors wrought probably an unprecedented rise in cultural communication and trade on a global scale within the known world.
The scientific discoveries by Sir Isaac Newton indeed revolutionized the world as it was known in his time on a singular level. But the importance of Copernicus should not be underestimated; the scientific revolution basically began with his De revolutionibus orbium coelestium ('On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres').
Let's take a look at a list of significant people throughout history (chronological order by each one's death). In my opinion, there is too much folklore behind Abraham, and maybe behind Moses, Homer, and Zoroaster (but I added the latter three). Each of the following people were very important for one reason or another, and many others could be argued for as being analogous. Moreover, one's 'importance' counts even if their actions had consequences far beyond their ability or intentions etc. I do not include ones still living. This is not complete and objective, as it is too western-centric; but my knowledge and sources are lacking to achieve that. Add and substract all you want!
Menes (or Aha), ruled c. 3100-2850 B.C. Founding Egyptian Pharaoh of the 1st Dynasty (or 2nd?), and possible unifier of ancient Egypt.
Khufu (Cheops) reigned c. 2589 B.C. to 2566 B.C. Egyptian Pharaoh of 4th Dynasty; he was behind the construction of the Great Pyramid at Giza.
Sargon the Great (Sarru-Kinnu), d. c. 2219 B.C. Founder of the Akkadian Dynasty; perhaps the creator of imperialism.
Hammurabi, d. c. 1750 B.C. King (and Chief Priest) of Babylon.
Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten), Egyptian Pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty.
Moses, c. 13th century B.C. Religious leader (briefly put) in Egypt.
Homer, c. 8th/7th century B.C. Greek epic poet.
Adi Shankara, c. 800s B.C. Hindu philosopher.
Solon, d. 559 B.C. Athenian statesman, lawgiver, and poet.
Zoroaster (Zarathustra), d. c. 551 B.C. Iranian prophet.
Cyrus the Great, d. 530 B.C. Founder of the Persian (Achaemenid) Empire, which was based more on generosity, not repression. Persian influence played a dominant role in the shaping of the ancient world.
Mahavira (Vardhamana), d. c. 527 B.C. The principal figure (Tirthankar) in the development of Jainism.
Pythagoras of Samos, d. c. 490 B.C. Ionian (Greek) mathematician, mystic, and scientist; he is largely considered to be the first pure mathematician.
Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama), d. 483 B.C. Spiritual teacher of ancient India; founder of Buddhism (traditional).
Confucius (Kong Fuzi), d. 479 B.C. Chinese philosopher.
Themistocles, d. 459 B.C. Athenian leader of Athenian (Classical) Democracy (Thermopylae raised the stakes, but Salamis decided the fate of the western world).
Pericles (Perikles), d. 429 B.C. Athenian statesman, orator, and general; the foremost figure of the Golden Age of Greece.
Herodotus, d. c. 425 B.C. Greek historian; he is significant, as the 'Father of History', in the sense that he visited the regions he wrote of, placing history on an obsevational level. Thus he pioneered the fileds of anthropology, geography, and even sociology.
Socrates, d. 399 B.C. Greek philosopher; he is regarded as the father and fountainhead for western ethics and moral philosophy (the Socratic Method).
Thucydides, d. 395 B.C. Greek historian; he can be considered the first and greatest scientific historian, whose monumental work of the great clash between Athens and Sparta was a paradigm of careful research and objective accounting (but no one is infallible).
Hippocrates, d. c. 370 B.C. Greek physician; he might be the 'Father of Medicine'.
Plato (Aristocles, d. 347 B.C. Greek philosopher.
Philip II, d. 336 B.C. Macedonian king who embedded imperialism into Greece, perhaps 'delaying' experiments in democratic government for centuries (the Romans came in later to effect that delay, too.) But that's looking at the situation anachronistically.
Alexander the Great, d. 323 B.C. Macedonian conqueror; perhaps the greatest warrior/conqueror/cultural reformer of all time.
Aristotle, d. 322 B.C. Greek philosopher; he excelled in an amalgam of topics, including physics, metaphysics, poetry (including theater), biology and zoology, logic, rhetoric, politics, government, and ethics. One of the most 'significant' men who has ever lived.
Demosthenes, d. 322 B.C. Greek statesman and orator in ancient Athens; he is one of history's greatest rhetoriticians.
Lao Tzu (Laozi), c. 4th century B.C. Chinese philosopher.
Euclid (Euklidis, d. c. 300 B.C. Greek mathemitician.
Chandragupta Maurya, d. 298 B.C. Founder of the Maurya Empire; he succeeded in uniting almost all of India, thus perhaps its first true emperor.
Meng Tzu (Mencius), d. 289 B.C. Chinese philosopher.
Ahsoka the Great, d. 232 B.C. Mauryan emperor.
Archimedes, d. 212 B.C. Syracusian Greek mathematician, engineer, inventor, and scientist.
Qin Shi Huang (Ying Zheng, d. 210 B.C. First emperor of a unified China.
Eratosthenes, d. 194 B.C. Greek mathematician, geographer, and astronomer.
Publius Cornelius Scipio (Scipio Africanus), d. 183 B.C. Roman general; his brilliant campaigns ushered in the Roman Empire (though not in name).
Hannibal Barca, d. c. 182 B.C. Carthaginian general and statesman; one of the supreme commanders of history, whose tactics and leadership of men became the ideal to which many future leaders would aspire.
Lucretius, d. c. 55 B.C. Roman poet and philosopher; his epic work De Rerum Natura ('On the Nature of Things') boldly proposed the reality of man's role in a universe without the gods to help him along.
Julius Caesar, d. 44 B.C. Roman general - and just about everything else. Even if he has been made larger than life, he still remains a supreme figure of history.
Cicero, d. 43 B.C. Roman statesman, lawyer, political theorist, philosopher; probably Rome's greatest orator and versatile mind.
Augustus (Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus), d. 14. 1st Roman emperor.
Jesus of Nazareth, d. c. 30. Jewish spiritual leader who formulated the basic tenets of Christianity. Perhaps the most famous person ever, and if not seperated from Jesus Christ, hands down history's most 'important' person. Personally, I do seperate the man from the deity.
St. Paul (Saul of Tarsus, d. 64. Jewish proselytizer, the 1st, of Christianity, and the religion's principal founder.
Ts'ai Lun (Cai Lun), d. c. 121. Chinese inventor of a conventional papermaking process.
Galen of Pergamum, d. c. 216. Greek physician; his theories dominated Western medical science for over a thousand years.
Mani, d. 276. Iranian (Parthian) prophet of Manichaeism.
Constantine the Great (Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus, d. 337. 1st Christian Roman emperor; the Edict of Milan proved enormously influential upon the world.
Alaric I, d. 410. King of the Visigoths.
Hypatia of Alexandria, d. 415. Greek philosopher and mathematician; she also taught in numerous fields of the Platonic school of thought.
St. Augustine (Augustine of Hippo), d. 430. Christian theologian of Berber descent.
Justinian I (Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Iustinianus), d. 565. Eastern Roman emperor.
Sui Wen Ti (Yang Jian), d. 604. Chinese founder of the Sui Dynasty.
Muhammed (Mohammed, Mahomet, and other variants), d. 632. Arabic (Quraysh tribe) merchant who became the Prophet of Islam; a giant of history.
Abu bakr, d. 634. 1st caliph of Islam.
Umar ibn al-Khattab, d. 644. 2nd caliph of Islam.
Charlemagne (Carolus Magnus), d. 814. King of the Franks and founder of the Holy Roman Emperor.
Rollo (Hrolf Ganger, or Robert of Normandy), d. c. 932. Viking raider; probably established the earliest form of feudalism.
Al-Khwarizmi (Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi), d. 850. Persian mathematician, astronomer, astrologer, and geographer; the father of algebra.
Ibn Sina (Aviceena), d. 1037. Persian (Tajik) polymath; one of the most diversified geniuses, in the field of science, medicine and overall knowledge, of all time.
Bi Sheng, d. 1051. Chinese inventor of the 1st movable type printing system (made of clay).
Robert Guiscard, d. 1085. Norman political and military leader; a great figure of the Norman conquest of southern Italy and Sicily. He also challenged the Byzantine Empire, before returning to defend, then sack, Rome.
William the Conqueror, d. 1087. Norman conqueror, William I of England, William II of Normandy; the long-term influence of the Norman conquest of England was colossal.
Urban II (Otho of Lagery), d. 1099. French pope; he spearheaded the crusades.
Roger I of Sicily, d. 1101. Norman count who was a primary leader in the Norman conquest of southern Italy.
Peter Lombard, d. 1160. Italian (b. Lombardy) scolastic theologian; author of The Four Books of Sentences, which would become the standard textbook of theology, for which he is also known as Magister Sententiarum.
Saladin (Salah al-Din Yusuf), d. 1193. Kurdish/Muslim ruler and warrior from Tikrit (80 mi. NW of Baghdad).
Philippe Auguste (Philip II), d. 1223. French king whose military prowess and political reforms practically created the nation of France.
Chinggis Khan (Gengis Khan, and other variants; b. Temuujin), d. 1227. Conqueror and founder of the Mongol Empire.
Alexander of Hales (Doctor Irrefragabilis and Theologorum Monarcha), d. 1245. English scholastic theologian; he systemitized the The Four Books of Sentences.
Simon de Montfort V, d. 1265. French noble who led the baronial rebellion in England against Henry III. A skilled commander, he can be considered the progenitor for constitutional monarchy (Provisions of Oxford and Westminster). For about a year in 1264-1265, he, not the king, was the virtual ruler of England.
St. Albert the Great (Albertus Magnus), d. 1280. German philosopher and theologian; noted for his advocacy for a peaceful coexistence of science and religion.
Saint Thomas Aquinas, d.1274. Italian Roman Catholic priest in the Dominican Order, philosopher, and theologian (scholastic tradition); he is the primary proponent of natural theology.
Roger Bacon (Doctor Mirabilis), d. 1294. English philosopher and Franciscan friar. An early great proponent of empiricism and modern scientific method.
Kublai Khan, d. 1294. Mongol khagan (the 5th) and founder of the Yuan Dynasty in China.
Marco Polo, d 1324. Venetian trader and explorer.
Edward III, d. 1377. English king; his military and political actions elevated England to a major power outside of the British Isles.
John Wycliffe, d. 1384. English theologian; he was the first primary dissident of the Roman Catholic Church. His Lollard Movement was a precursor to the Protestant Reformation.
Jan Huss, d. 1415. Czech religious thinker, philosopher, reformer; the term Hussites comes from his name, and his beliefs greatly influenced the Protestant Movement.
Joan of Arc (Jeanne d'Arc), d. 1415. French heroine; she is important mainly because her memory has been strongly invoked by many future leaders of western culture (mainly French).
Prince Henry the Navigator (Infante Henrique, d. 1460. The principal figure who co-ordinated and utilized the economy, equipment, and seafaring interest of Portugal towards the nation's great era of exploration and expansion.
Johannes Gensfleisch (Gutenberg, d. 1468. German goldsmith and engraver; developed European movable type and invented the printing press (metal movable type had been earlier developed, in c. 1230, by Korean craftsmen).
Isabella I, d. 1504. Queen regnant of Castile and Leon. Along with her husband Ferdinand II (d. 1516), they laid the foundation for the unification of Spain; they were instrumental in both driving the last Moorish stronghold out of Europe (fullfilling the near eight century long Reconquista), and sanctioning the great voyage by Colombus (Ferdinand II more so). They were incredibly influential upon the course the western world would follow.
Cristoforo Colombo (Christopher Colombus), d. 1506. Genoan navigator and colonialist; Columbus' voyages led to the general European awareness of the New World, thus he is the paramount figure for the successful establishment of European cultures there.
Francisco de Almeida, d. 1510. Portuguese nobleman, soldier and explorer; he established European hegemony in the Indian Ocean with his ultra-decisive naval victory over a Muslim fleet at Diu in 1509.
Leonardi (di ser Piero da Vinci), d. 1519. Italian (b. in Vinci, in Tuscany) polymath. He was the embodiment of Renaissance genius - a brilliantly creative man who advertised himself as firstly a military engineer. He theorized with human flight.
Ferdinand Magellan, d. 1521. Portuguese explorer in the service of Spain; he was the first to cross all the meridians of the globe, and many of his crew circumnavigated the world in his famed voyage.
Vasco da Gama, d. 1524. Portuguese explorer; he found the direct sea route to India from Europe (Portugal).
Niccolo Machievelli, d. 1527. Italian (b. near Florence) political philosopher and theorist, musician, poet and writer.
Francisco Pizarro, d. 1541. Spanish conquistador.
Paracelsus (b. Phillip von Hohenheim), d 1541. Swabian alchemist, physician, astrologer and general occultist.
Mikolaj Kopernik (Nicolaus Copernicus), d. 1543. Polish polymath, mainly an astronomer; formulated heliocentrism, which probably ushered in the scientific revolution. Another embodiment of the Renaissance.
Martin Luther, d 1546. German monk, theologian, and church reformer; by boldly (and dangerously) challenging the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, Luther actualized the Protestant Reformation on an inexorable level , another transforming event in history. But, as a sidenote, we should realize that he succeeded where Wycliffe and Hus failed before him in part because they didn't have the printing press (thanks to Gutenberg) to reach the masses in their respective regions; Luther did.
Hernan(do) Cortes, d. 1547. Spanish conquistador.
Gabriele Falloppio, d. 1562. Italian anatomist and physician;
Michelangelo (di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni), d. 1564. Italian Renaissance painter, sculptor, architect, poet and engineer.
John Calvin, d. 1564. French Protestant reformer; established Calvinism ('Reformed Faith').
Andreas Vesalius, d. 1564. Belgian anatomist and physician; the founder of modern human anatomy (along with the Italian Bartolomeo Eustachi, d. 1574).
Elizabeth I, d. 1603. Queen of England, and of France (nominally) and Ireland as of 1588 to her death.
William Shakespeare, d 1616. English playwright and poet; widely considerded the greatest writer of the English language (though controversies abound regarding his true identity).
Hans Lippershey, d. 1619. Dutch lensmaker; created the first practical telescope, along with fellow countryman Jacob Matius (d. 1620s).
Francis Bacon, d. 1626. English philosopher, statesman and essayist; a primary defender of the scientific revolution.
Johannes Kepler, d. 1630. German (Lutheran) mathematician, astronomer and astrologer.
Gustaf II Adolf (Gustavus Adolphus), d. 1632. Swedish king; one of the great monarchs of all time, mainly in stimulating his country's industrial capacity to make Sweden a major power. Moreover, he was a principal figure in revolutionizing how warfare would be conducted.
Galileo Galilei, d. 1642. Italian physicist, mathematician, astronomer and philosopher; he holds a significant standing in the history of modern science, and might be the principal figure in the development of the scientific method.
Rene Descartes (Renatus Cartesius), d. 1650. French philosopher, mathematician, scientist, and writer; he is dubbed the 'Father of Modern Philosophy' and the 'Father of Modern Mathematics'.
William Harvey, d. 1657. English physician; discovered the true circulatory pathways of blood.
Oliver Cromwell, d. 1658. English political and military leader; he is the principal spearhead for the establishment of parliamentary democracy as the English form of government.
Ferdinand Verbiest, d. 1688. Flemish Jesuit missionary in China who experimented with astronomy and steam etc. He developed a little steam propelled trolley around 1670, possibly the first steam powered "car".
George Fox, d. 1691. English Dissenter (seperating from the Church of England); the principal figure in the founding of the Religious Society of Friends, more commonly known as the Quakers.
John Locke, d. 1704. English philosopher. A great figure of the Enlightenment, and whose notions greatly aided the creation of consitutional democracy.
Louis XIV, d. 1715 French king; one of the greatest monarchs in history. Under his reign (one of 72 years) and stimulation, France achieved not only political and military pre-eminence, but also cultural dominance, with achievements by great figures that contributed to the prestige of France, its people, its language.
Gottfried Leibniz, d. 1716. German polymath; his notion of the branch of calculus is more widespread today than Newton's.
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (Thonius Philips van Leeuwenhoek), d. 1723. Dutch tradesman and scientist; created the optical microscope.
Peter the Great (Pyotr Alexeyevich Romanov), d. 1725. Russian ruler; created the Russian Empire.
Sir Isaac Newton, d. 1727. English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, and alchemist. Generally regarded as the greatest scientist who has ever lived.
Johann Sebastian Bach, d. 1750. German composer and organist.
Voltaire (Francois-Marie Arouet), d. 1778. French Enlightenment writer, essayist, deist, and philosopher.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, d. 1778. Swiss (Genevan) political philosopher.
Leonhard Euler, d. 1783. Swiss mathematician and physicist.
Benjamin Franklin, d. 1790. American Founding Father; one of the most versatile geniuses in history, Franklin excelled as an author, political theorist, politician, printer, scientist, inventor, civic activist, environmentalist, and diplomat etc. He pretty much formulated the idea of an American nation.
Adam Smith, d. 1790. Scottish moral philosopher and political economist.
John Smeaton, d. 1792. English civil and mechanical engineer, and physicist; the father of modern civil engineering.
Richard Arkwright, d. 1792. English inventor and industrialist; he invented the spinning frame (later called the water frame). He was a leading catalyst in the Industrial Revolution.
Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier, d. 1794. French scientist etc.; the 'father of modern chemistry'.
James Hutton, d. 1797. Scottish geologist; the 'father of moden geology'.
Maria Agnesi, d. 1799. Italian linguist, mathematician, and philosopher.
Montgolfier Brothers, French inventors (Jacques-Etienne, d. 1799, and Joseph Michel, d. 1810) of the hot air balloon; they are responsible for the advent of human flight.
George Washington, d. 1799. The central military and political figure in the founding of the United States of America (not necessarily the most 'brilliant'), and 1st American president.
Immanuel Kant, d.1804; German philiosopher (b. modern Kaliningrad); probably the most foremost thinkers of the Enlightenment.
Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot, d. 1804. French inventor of the prototype of the automobile. It is believed a steam-propeeled trolley was developed in 1670 by one Ferdinand Verbiest, a Flemish missionary in China.
Oliver Evans, d. 1819. American inventor; though not in actual desing, he is responsible for the eventual development of the refrigerator.
James Watt, d. 1819. Scottish inventor and engineer; the paramount figure of the Industrial Revolution (invented the steam engine).
Napoleon I (Napoleon Bonaparte), d. 1821. Emperor of the French etc; a giant of history, and not only as a soldier, but by administering outstanding economic and legislative practices. Moreover, his political influence extended beyond Europe.
Edward Jenner, d. 1823. English physician ('country doctor', specifically); developed the technique of vaccination.
Thomas Jefferson, d. 1826. American president, and principal author of the American Declaration of Independence.
Ludwig van Beethoven, d. 1827. German composer.
Francois Isaac de Rivaz, d. 1828. Swiss inventor who developed the first internal combustion engine in 1806; within a year, he made a rudimentary automobile powered by his engine (no gasoline until 1870).
Simon Bolivar, d. 1830. Born in what is now Caracas, Venezuela, he was the prominent leader for several independence movements in South America.
Joseph Niepce, d. 1833. French inventor; a pioneer in photography.
(Robert) Thomas Malthus, d. 1834. English demographer and political economist.
John Dalton, d. 1844. English chemist and physicist; he introduced the atomic theory into the scientific mainstream.
Louis-Jacques-Mande Daguerre, d. 1851. French artist and chemist; developed the first practical method of photography.
Jacob Perkins, d. 1849. American inventor, mechanical engineer and physicist.
Louis Daguerre, d. 1851.French chemist and artist; invented the first practical process of photography.
Joseph Aspdin, d. 1855. English stone mason by trade; he invented Portland Cement in 1824, which has remained the dominant cement used in concrete production.
Alfred Vail, d. 1859. American machinist and inventor; co-inventor, along with Samuel Morse (d. 1872), of Morse Code (ie, the telegraph).
Michael Faraday, d. 1867. English chemist and physicist; a key figure in the development of electromagnetism.
Henry David Thoreau, d. 1862. American author, naturalist, transcendentalist, and philosopher etc.; he is best known for his work Walden, a non-fiction account of what he felt was 'voluntary simplicity', but his influence is substantial with his Civil Disobedience, which had an impact upon the likes of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., both of whom took action.
Abraham Lincoln, d. 1865. American president, perhaps the greatest one; basically, he not only maintained the unity of the United States (though the country delved somewhat into a bipartisan political system which still exists today), but created a new one. A brilliant man, like Washington, he was great because he 'wasn't so great' at times; he knew from where and when (and from whom) to draw upon and utilize sources to move ahead.
Ignaz Semmelweis, d. 1865. Austrian-Hungarian physician who discovered the method of lessening the effects of puerperal fever (childbed fever).
William T.G. Morton, d. 1868. American dentist and physician; the principal figure in the use of anesthesia in surgery, administering ether before a public surgical operation in 1846.
Charles Babbage, d. 1871. English mathematician, philosopher, mechanical engineer and (proto) computer scientist; laid down the idea for the programmable computer. He also invented the standard railroad gauge, uniform postal rates, occulting lights for lighthouses, the heliograph, and the ophthalmoscope.
William Seward, d. 1872. American Secretary of State and senator; his work was enormously influential, which included the exapnsion of the United States.
John Stuart Mill, d. 1873. English philosopher, political economist, and Member of Parliament; a great liberal thinker of the 19th century, his work On Liberty is a a masterpiece of social commentary regarding individual rights.
James Clerk Maxwell, d. 1879. Scottish mathematician and theoretical physicist; perhaps the greatest physicist ever except Newton.
Charles Darwin, d. 1882. English naturalist; formulated one of the most controverisal and significant theories of all time, to this day never positively refuted.
Karl Marx, d. 1883. German philosopher, political economist/activist, and revolutionary; the father of communism, he is one of the most brilliant and co-original thinkers of all time. Though the 'triumph' of his original approach to social science did not endure, his ideas will remain very influential. But the famous tagline clouding over him is probably correct - communism works, but only in theory.
John Stringfellow, d. 1883. English lacemaker and bobbin manufacturer; an aviation pioneer, he aided in the development of the Aerial Steam Carriage, which ushered in powered flight.
Gregor Mendel, d. 1884. Moravian scientist, known as the 'father of modern genetics'.
William Henson, d. 1888. English aviation pioneer, lacemaker, and inventor.
Rudolf Clausius, d. 1888. German physicist and mathematician; he was the principal founder of the science of thermodynamics.
Antonio Meucci, d. 1889. Italian inventor; credited with the invention of the telephone.
Nikolaus August Otto, d. 1891. German inventor of the internal-combustion engine.
Heinrich Hertz, d. 1894. German experimental physicist and mechanician; he confirmed Maxwell's theory regarding electromagnetic waves.
Louis Pasteur, d. 1895. French chemist; achieved revolutionary breakthroughs in microbiology. Put it this way in assessing his importance: he is singularly responsible for the longer lifespan of human beings through the his advent of improved medicine.
Friedrich Engels, d. 1895. German social scientist and philosopher; developed communist theory with Marx, but completed the bulk of the treatise Das Kapital.
Alfred Nobel, d. 1896. Swedish chemist, engineer, innovator, and armaments manufacturer; inventor of dynamite.
Otto von Bismarck, d. 1898. 1st Chancellor of Germany; he engineered the Unification of Germany in 1871.
Jean Joseph Etienne Lenoir, d. 1900. Belgian-French engineer; his experimentation with electricity led him to develop the first internal combustion engine.
David Hughes, d. 1900. American experimental physicist and musician etc.; he was the first to transmit and receive electromagnetic waves.
Gottlieb Daimler, d. 1900. German (b. Swabia) engineer, industrial designer and industrialist; he was a pioneer of internal-combustion engines and automobile development.
Mary Baker Eddy, d. 1912. American founder of the Church of Christ, Scientist.
Wilbur Wright, d. 1912. American inventor, who along with his brother Orville (d. 1948), created the world's first successful fixed-winged aircraft.
Joseph Lister, d. 1912. English surgeon; he introduced the efficacious use of antiseptics in surgery.
Alfred Wallace, d. 1913. English naturalist, explorer, geographer, anthropologist and biologist; he independently proposed a theory of natural selection, which spurred Darwin to expidite his own theory.
Alexander Graham Bell, d. 1922. Scottish-born American scientist, inventor, and innovator; awarded the patent for the invention of the telephone.
Srinivasa Iyengar, d. 1920. Indian mathematician; possessing a brillaint mind, he made substantial contributions to the field of mathematical analysis.
Wilhelm Rontgen, d. 1923. German physicist; he was the discoverer of x-rays.
Lenin (Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov), d. 1924. Russian revolutionary and communist politician; the main leader of the October Revolution, and subsequently the first head of the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic.
John Browning, d. 1926. American firearms designer; he is probably the most important figure in the development of modern automatic and semi-automatic firearms.
Jozef Murgas, d. 1929. Slovak (b. in what was then the Kingdom of Hungary) inventor, architect, botanist, painter, patriot, and Roman Catholic priest; credited with the primacy of wireless information transmission via electromagnetic waves in 1905 (credited in 1916).
Sun Yat-sen, d. 1925. Chinese revolutionary and political leader; the 'father of modern China'.
Thomas Edison, d. 1931. American inventor (a voluminous one) and businessman; developed the phonograph and light-bulb etc.
Marie Curie (Maria Sklodowska), d. 1934. Polish-born physicist and chemist; she was a pioneer in the field of radioactivity.
Ernest Rutherford, d. 1937. New Zealand-born (Scottish parentage) nuclear (experimental) physicist; the father of modern nuclear physics who pioneered the orbital theory, among other things.
Guglielmo Marconi, d. 1937. Italian inventor; he developed the first radiotelegraph system, in which he achieved the first transatlantic radio transmission.
Jagadish Bose, d. 1937. Indian (Bengali) physicist; he invented the basis for radio reception (a coherer), and laid the foundations of experimental science in India.
Sigmund Freud, d. 1937. Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist. The most important figure in the develoment of modern psychological theory (despite the controversies surrounding his thinking).
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, d. 1938. Turkish (B. modern in Greece, but then an Ottoman region) founder of the Republic of Turkey; he proved to be an extremely skilled and determined reformer to modernize his state.
Nikola Tesla, d. 1943. Austrian (ethnic Serbian) inventor, physicist, and mechanical and electrical engineer; generally recognized as the true inventor of the radio (1897), among other tremendous accomplishments.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, d. 1945. American president, one of the greatest ever; he was a central figure of the world in its time of economic upheavels and world war.
Adolf Hitler, d. 1945. German (b. Austria) Chancellor and Fuhrer; perhaps the most pernicious man in history, judging by his ideology and actions. His horrific effect upon the world of his day was probably more powerful than any other in history, but his long-term tangible impact on the world has been negligible.
John Keynes, d. 1946. British economist; a pioneer of modern economic and political theory.
Henry Ford, d. 1947. American industrialist; the primary individual responsible for the establishment of assembly lines and mass production. His Ford Model-T automobile revolutionized transportation.
Max Planck, d. 1947. German physicist; founder of the quantum theory in 1900, thus spearheaded the deeper understanding of matter and radiation.
Felix Hoffman, d. 1949. German chemist; the first to synthesize medically useful forms of aspirin and heroin.
Willis Carrier, d. 1950. American engineer and inventor; invented modern air-conditioning.
Stalin (Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili), d. 1953. Georgian-born de facto leader and dictator of the Soviet Union; one of history's 'total' ruthless leaders, whose short-term influence might be second only to Hitler's (IMHO).
Enrico Fermi, d. 1954. Italian physicist; he developed the first nuclear reactor.
Alexander Fleming, d. 1955. Scottish biologist and pharmacologist; the discovery of penicillin is attributed to him.
Albert Einstein, d. 1955. German-born theoretical physicist; he radically changed scientific thought (particularly with regards to the cosmos) with his theory (ies) of relativity, and his work had a profound impact not only on the subsequent progress in physics, but all theoretical and applied sciences.
George C. Marshall, Jr,, d. 1959. American General of the Army, and Secretary of State and Defense. His Marshall Plan for European recovery can be viewed as American 'generosity' or 'economic imperialism', but there is no questioning its impact on post WWII Europe and even beyond.
Niels Bohr, d. 1962. Danish physicist; contributed greatly to the understanding of atomic structure and quantum mechanics.
John F. Kennedy, d. 1963. American president; his significant influence rests on the fact he was the principal figure behind the Apollo Space Program.
Winston Churchill, d. 1965. British politician and strategist; he was a tremendous figure of the 20th century.
Gregory Pincus, d. 1967. American research biologist; he is responsible, with others, for the introduction of the oral contraceptive (birth control pill). Imagine this impact, not only in affecting the issue of overpopulation, but a 'revolution' in sexual attitudes.
Werner Heisenberg, d. 1976. German physicist; probably the principal figure in the field of quantum mechanics.
Mao Tse-tung (Mao Zedong), d. 1976. Chinese Marxist military and political leader, philosopher, and founder of the People's Republic of China. A giant of the 20th century, Mao 'defined' the concepts of political and guerrilla warfare, and may be the greatest theorist and practitioner of revolutionary guerilla warfare, which he termed 'people's war'. Moreover, his reign might have witnessed the bloodiest in history on an internal level.
Thomas Kuhn, d. 1996. American intellectual; he adopted influential notions to the philosophy of science.
Robert Watson-Watt, d. 1973. Scottish meteorologist by training; he developed the first workable radar system (Radio Detection and Ranging) in the 1930s, which would be instrumental in determining the result of a crossroads in history - the Battle of Britain.
Edward Teller, d. 2003. Hungarian-born American theoretical physicist; the 'father of the hydrogen bomb'.
Ronald Reagan, d. 2004. American president; he aided greatly in ending the Cold War, albeit the issues regarding the collapse of the Soviet state are certainly complex. Reagan's apologists' presentation as him as the hero who ended the Cold War is not completely tenable (eg, conservatives on FoxNews etc.).
Ok that's enough :dizzy2: My apologies in advance for certainly missing many others.
Thanks, Spartan JKM ~:)
Indeed, too bad people who achieved great things or had a great impact on history without using violence aren't remembered as strongly, among the most obvious being Karl Marx and Ghandi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orb
:oops: :oops:
Spefications are in order here: Rivaz built the first internal combustion engine powered by a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. Lenoir produced a gas-fired internal combustion engine which was the first internal combustion engine to be produced in numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by yours truly
Another great figure was Al-Jazari, d. 1206. He was an important Arab Muslim scholar, inventor, and mechanical engineer during the Islamic Golden Age during the Middle Ages.
Thanks, Spartan JKM ~:)
One greatly interesting post :bow:
However, I disagree with the statement that Mohammed genuinely united the Arabian tribes or Islamic interest. Islamic cultures are no more exempt to internal war than the rest of men, the Arabians before Mohammed, while significantly smaller, do not seem to have been less stable than the various Islamic caliphates following in Mohammed's wake.
Not actually true, I think. Ethiopia and the Sudanese kingdoms were mostly Christian, certainly until Saladin began a campaign of aggression against the latter (partly because Makuria had invaded Egypt, probably in support of their Fatimid allies) and eventually Makuria and Nobatia was Arabised and driven down. Ethiopia is still largely Christian. What's quite interesting is that the Fatimids coexisted profitably and happily with these Christian states, whereas Saladin (who is always considered very noble and honest) initiated the destruction of the Ethiopian Christians.Quote:
Abyssinia (modern southern Sudan, Etrirea and Ethiopia) embraced the new faith.
Then again, anti-Saladin rants are best reserved for another thread.
I repeat, and truly mean
One greatly interesting post :bow:
Spartan JKM: Wow, impressive posts. You'd become a member in no time I presume. You have post quite a comprehensive list of arguments and viewpoints in various topics -- which I sadly cannot address in full, what's with my ignorance and all. Hopefully we'll be seeing you in the Monastery and the Tavern soon. :bow:
Oh, and welcome to the Org. ~:cheers:
Innocentius: Thx. ~:) Though to be honest your mention of Dostoevsky (dark, dark author; can't stop reading =I ) reminds me that I completely neglected the great philosophers and authors of the past in favor of a gentle contemporary jab on the trend of, ah, hero-worship. The list is what's to be expected really from a forum about a series of wargames; I myself respect many of them, some for visions, other for competence, and a few for the extremities of their personality; but I just like Love Hina more: tsundere for the win! (historically significant!?) :2thumbsup:
Hmmmm..... My favorite historical character is.... Gimli, Son of Gloin!!! :2thumbsup: :grin: Fine... Not a real person, I know, I know... I personally am a fan of Julius Caesar. He was (like everyone else) human, but he did a really good job with the empire, all things considered! I'm still undecided on TOP favorite though...
Genghis Khan. He brought Mongolia from a weak tribe of Barbarians to the most powerful people on Earth from 1206-1368. He also won many battles outnumbered.
Thank you Orb and Antiochus III.
Orb, I wanted to be as careful as possible when stating things about Muhammed, mainly for the obvious resaons (the sensitive political climate since the 7th century etc., etc.). I have read conflicting accounts of his rise and goals. Some say he wanted Islam to be cosmopolitan, others say the opposite.
Yes, Ethiopia I think is largely Christian, according to a national census. But Islam is hardly a small minority (perhaps 1/3 of the country?). However, the CIA World Factbook (perhaps a 'loose' proclamation) has Islam as the the most widely practiced religion there.
Anyway, that's just pedantry as far as I am concerned; a lot has happened since the 7th century. But the Negus, one Armah (or Ashama; we just don't know for sure) readily accepted Islam in the late 620s, a decade or so after the faith had been introduced. Now, perhaps the people themselves didn't accept it as much.
http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/negus.html
You see, this is the problem we have, one which is sadly an historical tradition: I have read stuff to the contrary - regarding specific points, such as the conquests (of course they are not immune to internecine). It didn't come about immediately, but one of the great glories of Islam was that it dissolved barriers of race and language to a degree no religion or empire had achieved before. The great conquests could not have so astonishingly succeeded if not for a fight for their new faith, no matter how much in decline the proximate empires were.Quote:
...However, I disagree with the statement that Mohammed genuinely united the Arabian tribes or Islamic interest. Islamic cultures are no more exempt to internal war than the rest of men, the Arabians before Mohammed, while significantly smaller, do not seem to have been less stable than the various Islamic caliphates following in Mohammed's wake....
I don't think Muhammed's call radically changed any moral tradition of the Arabian peoples; what he did was unit them under a single pure faith. Before, they were polytheists who worshipped idols and nature spirits. He viewed this as primative. Now, whether that is better or worse for one's personal values, I have no right to say. But in terms of cohesion, it was monumental. Professor Ira Lapidus tells us,
"...Islam gave traditional virtues and social institutions a new meaning that could command allegiance and elicit participation. By giving old concepts new meaning, it made possible a new religious sensibility and the integration of disparate peoples into a new community. When one looks at Arabiian society before and after Muhammed, the outward movement was small, but the inner journey was immeasurable...To this day, to be a Muslim implies a combination of personal religious belief and membership in the community of fellow believers."
Regarding Julius Caesar's Gallic campaign, of which are major source comes from Caesar's own self-aggrandizing (albeit wonderfully written) Commentaries, I think you are basically correct: Gaul was a divided land. But - and here comes the pedantry :book: - the political order was aristocratic in nature, and the balance of power, at least in the major theater in central-eastern Gaul, was basically divided between two confederations headed by the Aedui tribe (Caesar's most loyal allies in Gaul) and the Sequani. But I don't think we can say they were vulnerable victims awaiting an onslaught by Roman expansionism (see Adrian Goldsworthy's new bio on Caesar, Pg. 204). The Aedui were in the ascendant, and the Sequani (and Arverni) sought help from the Germanic (Seubi) leader Ariovistus. His defeat of the Aedui and subsequent settlement into the modern Alsace region. The Gauls didn't like this, and their differences were set aside to kick Ariovistus out. But he beat them in 60 B.C., compelling them to appeal to Rome for help, who considered then said no due to a revolt among tribes (the Allobroges) further south (ie, closer to Italy). Thus, the Aedui started asking the Helvetii for help (tribe of western Switzerland); they wanted fertile land to settle in. Wishing to not (yet) make an enemy of Ariovistus, the Senate, with Caesar's sanctioning, conferred him 'King and Friend' of the Roman people. This recognition brought some stability to the regions.
As we (should) know, Caesar's primary interest was his own position, and the conquest of Gaul - which was ostensibly called the 'pacification of Gaul' - would provide the monetary and political muscle for him to reign supreme. His entire campaign, at the head of a tremedous force of the best soldiers any commander could hope for, was an outstanding display of speed and logistics. He was always a master at extricating himself from precarious situations he may have impetuously gotten himself into; this was also evident later in the Civil Wars in Greece and Africa.
Anyway, the Gauls did unite, for the most part, under the able leadership of Vercingetorix, whose strong character raised a very solid flag of rebellion. In 52 B.C., he opened the revolt against Rome by summoning other leaders under this just cause, and implemented a good strategy to get rid of Caesar: he would deny the Romans the sustenance required for a campaign in a foreign land. Vercingetorix scorched the earth and stored the vital supplies in defended areas; fields were assiduously cleared of grain and fodder. All villages and farms along Caesar's expected march were destroyed. Vercingetorix, the best he could, disciplined and armed his soldiers at an unprecedented level, and even the Aedui largely broke from Caesar. Vercingetorix wisely avoided open engagements, despite his vast superiority in numbers (of course Caesar's enumerations are ridiculously extravagant). But the incredible speed of Caesar' movement, and the ability at siegecraft of his superbly drilled men, were too much for the valiant Gauls and their good leader in the end: he captured and plundered some towns, giving him valuable supply depots before Vercingetorix could garrison them fully. The successful siege of Alesia nearly defies belief! Stout lines of circumvallation and contravallation (lines of entrenchments to attack both a fortification and defend from a relief army) comprised one of the most elaborate and efficacuious in military history (albeit Caesar risked being besieged himself within his works).
Like him or hate him - are indifferent - Caesar, though probably presented as larger than life by written history down the ages, was a giant: a despot and a champion of the (some) people, he achieved everything politically and militarily, whether in Rome or Asia Minor. It's quite ahuge specualtion regarding his plans for Parthia; the lesson of Carrhae was learnt, and Publius Ventedius, once a subordinate of Caesar's had shown how to best the Parthians. But conquering into their far away territory was another thing. He was too big - as far as Cinna, Cimber, Casca, Cassius, and Brutus were concerned, he had to go.
Thanks, Spartan JKM ~:)
Aww, man. Patton and Rommel are already taken? Then either Saladin (gotta admit, his actions went a long way for Islamic unity) or Hamilton, possibly the most influential mind for the American economy not counting Adam Smith?
Sorry for the double post but might I suggest the excellent books The Patton Papers and Infantry Attacks by Erwin Rommel. It'll increase your respect for both those men.
Ramesses II of course. The second longest reign in recorded history (disputed). Created the earliest known peace treaty in recorded history. Likely father of over 100 children. Survived discovering that it is unwise to lead your army from the front. Built more statues and structures in Egypt than any five other rulers, and by some accounts was elevated to godhood within his own lifetime. How many other men in this thread so intimidated their successors that those men defaced statues of the great one for generations to come to avoid being compared?
Though many of his accomplishments have been lost to time, his lifespan alone would make him extremely remarkable relative to his peers. Durability on stage is not a feature of many great men, nor is versatility. Three thousand years ago he led his people to build many great works that still exist today.
'Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
:egypt:
My favorite historical character is DEFINITELY Augustus Caesar.
He brought order and greatness back to Rome by declaring an end to the civil wars of the first century B.C., removed corrupt governors and proconsuls, killed off the Senators who supported Gaius Julius Caesar's death and replaced them with competent senators who supported him, and reorganized and strengthened the legions.
If Augustus would've lived forever, I bet the Roman Empire would've lived forever. (Teehee maybe I'm exaggerating. :laugh4:)
oh, i think my favourite historical character is Napoleon
There are so many interesting people in history, as has been proved already in this thread. Being English, though, skews my thought slightly and the one that is of main interest to me is Elizabeth I.
Tremendously ruthless and (with luck) played off against the world's super power, Elizabeth presided over one of England's Golden Ages both culturally (Bacon and Shakespeare stand out) and militarily.
As a politician she was immensely powerful, both internally and internationally. At a time when religion was a defining attribute, Elizabeth was able to use this amazingly well.
My favourite historical character is Tamerlane since he was able to reverse the decline of the Chaghatai Khanate and under him the city of Samarkand flourished.The fall of the Byzantine Empire was delayed by 50 years because Timur defeated and captured Bayazid I the Sultan of the Ottomans which caused the Ottoman Interregnum.Also his most illustrious descendant Babur founded the Mughal Empire in India.Under Timur and his successors a distinct architectural style developed which largely drew upon Persian architecture and this style would influence Mughal architecture in India.Timur's grandson Ulugh Beg was an avid astronomer and mathematician who built a splendid madrassa in the Registan Square in Samarkand.Today Timur's descendants still exist in the Indian subcontinent via the descendants of the Last Mughal Bahadhur Shah Zafar.
:daisy: The British was outnumbered for two hole years in North Africa and big mighty Rommel couldn't defeat the 8th Army even though he had more tanks better tanks and more manpower. I think you Americans are just jealous because the British Army defeated Rommel and the yanks never did, But no shock really, What Military history does America have? None thats worth thinking about, Every time you have more manpower and just bully your way to victory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
When we re-armed after 2 full years of defending the Egyptian border regions we started a counter-offensive, With the biggest Artillery bombardment by the British Army since the Great War, Thousands of troops march to the bagpipes into German positions and over-ran them, Within a couple of weeks Rommel had his :daisy: back in Germany after a defeat by the tactics and courage of one man Bernard Montgomery.
As for Market Garden, Don't just easily blame Montgomery,:daisy:. And as for it being the biggest military disaster of all time, :daisy:. It was Americans that went ahead with the plan even though a British Officer told them a Panzer Division was around the target of Arnhem Bridge but the gung-ho Americans went ahead never the less.
a lot of great posts so far.
If you disagree with some piece of historical information someone posts, be constructive in your reply.
As for great people from the past...how about the person who discovered bacteria? Thanks to him medical care could take giant leaps...
My favourite historical character is a person whose name I do not know.
It's the person who invented toiletpaper. Gotta love it.
As a Brit I find that a rather bizarre statement indeed... Yes, America has a good military pedigree. The highlight, for me, would be the Pacific campaigns in WW2. You mention bullying tactics - erm, Midway? Coral Sea? In terms of naval warfare, America has produced a series of outstanding admirals quickly caught up with Japan. Admittedly, Japan's hegemony was always going to be limited, but even Yamamato was optimistic given the startling performance of the remaining American fleet. Don't deride a military that has earnt a good deal of merit for wielding an advantage it has, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper The Builder
Monty did well, it was the first reversal for the Axis in Europe. The last 'honourable' fighting took place in this campaign...Quote:
When we re-armed after 2 full years of defending the Egyptian border regions we started a counter-offensive, With the biggest Artillery bombardment by the British Army since the Great War, Thousands of troops march to the bagpipes into German positions and over-ran them, Within a couple of weeks Rommel had his :daisy: back in Germany after a defeat by the tactics and courage of one man Bernard Montgomery.
You cannot blame the Americans for this. At the end of the day it ws a poorly conceived/planned/executed plan. very high risk and high gain. Very atypical of Monty, to be fair - he always sought the minimal of casualties to his army - something to be applauded.Quote:
As for Market Garden, Don't just easily blame Montgomery,:daisy:. And as for it being the biggest military disaster of all time, :daisy:. It was Americans that went ahead with the plan even though a British Officer told them a Panzer Division was around the target of Arnhem Bridge but the gung-ho Americans went ahead never the less.
I've always been told that Market Garden was a result of Monty feeling pressured to prove himself after loosing his primary leadership position in the allied armies; the mistake here was, I'm told, born of frustration, and not really a reflection of his (usually great) skill as a commander.Quote:
You cannot blame the Americans for this. At the end of the day it ws a poorly conceived/planned/executed plan. very high risk and high gain. Very atypical of Monty, to be fair - he always sought the minimal of casualties to his army - something to be applauded.
Well, hence the 'atypical' part...
True - I was referring more to Jasper's post than to yours; I just happened to quote the latter ~;)
Spartan JKM pretty much ended the thread there with that ridiculously long list =)
Still, I have a few more.
Guan Yu (160-219 AD) was posthumously declared the God of War. I also have a fondness for his foe, Lu Bu, who is a pretty tragic character because he has no foresight at all.
I find all the ancient characters fascinating because we know comparitively little about them, and have to use imagination to fill in the gaps. Hammurabi, Ramses II, etc.
A modern character I find fascinating is Aaron Burr (1756-1836) . His life was just bizarre. He killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel while vice president, and later plotted to take over American land and rule it. This thread isn't necessarily about important historical people, just interesting ones.
My 2 cents on the Monty debate; any general whom history records as an unmitigated and continuous success obviously wrote the history himself. Market Garden was a debacle, and Monty bore primary responsibility for it's relatively hasty planning and execution. One campaign, however, does not a commander's whole reputation make. Considering his conduct in North Africa Market Garden was the exception rather than the rule. Reversals for the German army didn't begin when they started pulling out their troops, they began when Monty assumed command, and Monty was rightly knighted for being the first allied commander to win a major battle against the Germans.
Insulting the American military tradition as a result of wholesale 'bullying' is simply absurd. People often say the same about the Russians, and it reflects a crude and simplistic view of a nationality instead of any comprehensive knowledge of their military history. Just in case no one told you, Jasper, Nationalism is dead, and putting forward the curious claim that Americans have never been outnumbered in battle is going to require a lot of research and fact checking before people stop laughing at you.
:egypt:
What "American military tradition"? America is only 200 years old or whatever. Please tell me once when the USA army didnt have the advantage over its foe. And I'm not talking about Naval Battles, I am talking about land campaign, Ive heard enough of Midway to least me a lifetime, But still hardly Trafalgar or Quiberon Bay. And oh our Navy is 5 times as old as the United States in the first place thats REAL tradition for you. Americans are nothing on Russian History either and they are have seen action on their home soil unlike America, Oh sorry was it CSA in your civil war, Just that its so boring its not worth knowing about.
Greatest Americans achievements was killing Red Indians and Buffalo in their millions in one of the worlds first great genocides. Maybe this is where the love of guns came from by U.S citizens.
Americans take all the credit for D-Day and WW2 it makes us Brits feel sick, You never give credit to Great Britain and Commonwealth, So why should we treat you any differently? After all Britain has been a Nation for many thousands of years, That old our Origins are completely lost, I wonder if Geoffrey Monmouth was right? Oh well...America traditions you mean migrant traditions?
Oh and Nationalism is not dead, Not here and not the U.S.A either.
'...didn't have the advantage over it's foe,' (From your second post) and '...have more manpower,' (From your first) are not the same claims, so I can only assume you realized how outrageous your original statement was and attempted to revise it without backtracking. To answer your absurd original position, simply look up Khe Sanh.
If you were attempting to present an intelligent case as opposed to an ignorant rant I would expect a retraction at this point. Instead I have high hopes that your insults will turn personal rather than merely national. Nationalism is intellectually dead, it has no serious defenders; only pseudo-hostile zealots with a limited grasp of history still hold desperately to the idea.
Your further attempts to derail the conversation and distract attention from the fact that you posted something blatantly incorrect will be ignored.
:egypt:
Again :Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithrandir
If you disagree with some piece of historical information someone posts, be constructive in your reply.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on who they like best from history, no need for an argument on it.
Apologies for my part in derailing the thread, I'll stop putting out bait now. :laugh4: :oops:
id like to add leonardo da vinci to the list, he really was the homo universalis that all great men in his age tried to achieve to be. the fact that some his discoveries about anatomy weren't rediscovered till well in the 20th century says enough. also the fact multiple of his designs we're tested and actually worked says it all, further more he was a brilliant artist.
Now, how far back?
Mine favorite historical figure is deffinitely General George Patton, for many, many reasons.
Hi All,My choice would be Stonewall Jackson a brilliant field commander in the early years of the American Civil War.magpie.
I've always had a soft spot for Temujin (AKA Ghengis Khan), in spite of the massive loss of life. I remember reading a book which stated that all those massacres of the populace of conquered cities was mostly because he, uhh, didn't have enough troops to control all them pesky people if they were alive! Never mind the scare value to other cities. But starting out from nothing to ending up with the largest continuous land empire in history is quite amazing.
On the grand scale of things Sequoyah probably doesn't rank too high, but his role in inventing a writing system for the Cherokee is pretty impressive. Especially considering how quickly the system was learned and adopted in the few short years after it was finished.
On the same vein of thought but on the opposite side of things, theres Andrew Jackson. A complete opportunist and just overall bad guy. Those of you who think recent administrations have been bad should take a look at his life and Presidency.