Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by gollum:
The way to hell is paved with good intentions, or so they say.
Does that mean that a way to heaven is paved with bad intentions?The way to hell is paved with good intentions, or so they say.
I fear this nice thread may end locked because of the hot debates about marxism-leninism, stalinism and etc. So it may be a good idea to open a new thread in the Monastery... Recently there have not been many new threads there...
Let's keep this thread on the basis of personal opinion and drop extremely complicated debates like ideology and religion. These are for separate threads.
Let's keep this thread on the basis of personal opinion and drop extremely complicated debates like ideology and religion. These are for separate threads.
Originally Posted by :
Originally posted by Sarmatian
Does that mean that a way to heaven is paved with bad intentions?
Originally posted by Sarmatian
Does that mean that a way to heaven is paved with bad intentions?
Whatever you say
I hesitate between those two:
Jean Meslier: the first one who dared writing "there is nothing like a God". And he was a priest, mind you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Meslier
And La Mettrie, surgeon and philosopher:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mettrie
Jean Meslier: the first one who dared writing "there is nothing like a God". And he was a priest, mind you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Meslier
And La Mettrie, surgeon and philosopher:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mettrie
I am going to be boring and simply name Napoleon. The hammer of progress. The man who put a bayonet on the Enlightenment. What is there not to love and hate about him? 
Russia, Leipzig, the Russian winter, the tactic of avoiding open battle with Napoleon and instead engaging his marshalls, a war of attrition. These defeated Napoleon at last.
Napoleon's short return from exile culminating in Waterloo was not important. It did serve to offer Wellington and Britain at last an opportunity to get a shot in too. Like a matador who hides backstage, waits for the bull to be defeated, and upon seeing the dying bull reaching up his head for a last gasp of air, quickly runs into the arena to stick his sword in and then claims glorious victory.
Et des boyaux du dernier prêtre serrons le cou du dernier roi...
Originally Posted by scipiosgoblin:
If you go to Waterloo, it looks like a shrine dedicated to Napoleon. Wellington is barely mentioned in any of the monuments or literature.
I'd say that is because Wellington wasn't all that important. In fact, neither was Waterloo. Napoleon had been decisively and irreversibly defeated before the Hundred Days, well before Wellington dared to ride out openly against Napoleon. If you go to Waterloo, it looks like a shrine dedicated to Napoleon. Wellington is barely mentioned in any of the monuments or literature.
Russia, Leipzig, the Russian winter, the tactic of avoiding open battle with Napoleon and instead engaging his marshalls, a war of attrition. These defeated Napoleon at last.
Napoleon's short return from exile culminating in Waterloo was not important. It did serve to offer Wellington and Britain at last an opportunity to get a shot in too. Like a matador who hides backstage, waits for the bull to be defeated, and upon seeing the dying bull reaching up his head for a last gasp of air, quickly runs into the arena to stick his sword in and then claims glorious victory.
Originally Posted by Tristuskhan:
Jean Meslier: the first one who dared writing "there is nothing like a God". And he was a priest, mind you...
And La Mettrie, surgeon and philosopher:
Great choices! I love the combination of the two. Jean Meslier: the first one who dared writing "there is nothing like a God". And he was a priest, mind you...
And La Mettrie, surgeon and philosopher:
Et des boyaux du dernier prêtre serrons le cou du dernier roi...
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
I am going to be boring and simply name Napoleon. The hammer of progress. The man who put a bayonet on the Enlightenment. What is there not to love and hate about him?
I'd say that is because Wellington wasn't all that important. In fact, neither was Waterloo. Napoleon had been decisively and irreversibly defeated before the Hundred Days, well before Wellington dared to ride out openly against Napoleon.
Russia, Leipzig, the Russian winter, the tactic of avoiding open battle with Napoleon and instead engaging his marshalls, a war of attrition. These defeated Napoleon at last.
Napoleon's short return from exile culminating in Waterloo was not important. It did serve to offer Wellington and Britain at last an opportunity to get a shot in too. Like a matador who hides backstage, waits for the bull to be defeated, and upon seeing the dying bull reaching up his head for a last gasp of air, quickly runs into the arena to stick his sword in and then claims glorious victory.
Great choices! I love the combination of the two.
Et des boyaux du dernier prêtre serrons le cou du dernier roi...
About Britain, well, you miss Spain + the British gold for the continental enemies of Napoleon.I am going to be boring and simply name Napoleon. The hammer of progress. The man who put a bayonet on the Enlightenment. What is there not to love and hate about him?
I'd say that is because Wellington wasn't all that important. In fact, neither was Waterloo. Napoleon had been decisively and irreversibly defeated before the Hundred Days, well before Wellington dared to ride out openly against Napoleon.
Russia, Leipzig, the Russian winter, the tactic of avoiding open battle with Napoleon and instead engaging his marshalls, a war of attrition. These defeated Napoleon at last.
Napoleon's short return from exile culminating in Waterloo was not important. It did serve to offer Wellington and Britain at last an opportunity to get a shot in too. Like a matador who hides backstage, waits for the bull to be defeated, and upon seeing the dying bull reaching up his head for a last gasp of air, quickly runs into the arena to stick his sword in and then claims glorious victory.
Great choices! I love the combination of the two.
Et des boyaux du dernier prêtre serrons le cou du dernier roi...
Mine favourite is Tokugawa Ieasy, the last of the three unifiers of Japan.
Originally Posted by Tristuskhan:
I hesitate between those two:
Jean Meslier: the first one who dared writing "there is nothing like a God". And he was a priest, mind you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Meslier
And La Mettrie, surgeon and philosopher:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mettrie
I hesitate between those two:
Jean Meslier: the first one who dared writing "there is nothing like a God". And he was a priest, mind you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Meslier
And La Mettrie, surgeon and philosopher:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Mettrie
somebody has not heard of Abu 3ala' al-ma3arri..he basically was a hardcore religoius sceptic; he did not get ot the level of Aeheist, but he was close.
but either way, this marks a shift from a faith based to a logic based society, or at least the beginings of it. (that said, I'm no Aetheist. no I have nothng against them).
Originally Posted by Ibrahim:
somebody has not heard of Abu 3ala' al-ma3arri..he basically was a hardcore religoius sceptic; he did not get ot the level of Aeheist, but he was close.
Of course I know himsomebody has not heard of Abu 3ala' al-ma3arri..he basically was a hardcore religoius sceptic; he did not get ot the level of Aeheist, but he was close.
"there are two kinds of men on earth: those with a religion and no brain and those who have a brain but no religion". Hardcore religious sceptic, that's the word. A man well ahead of his time (10th-11th century AD). My knowledge in middle-age's philosophy is very narrow so I don't know if his positions were worked on and expanded. Do you have more info about him, Ibrahim?Although i have great respect for Caesar, Octavius, Napoleon, Jackson and Churchill (Winston), I do not like some of their actions and/or personality trait.
My favorite would be Abraham Lincoln for his achievements and moral righteousness. He was no fanatic but did not shy away to go to war when diplomacy and mediation had fail. A truly great state man, a shame he die so early.
I have also a lot of admiration for Washington. He is on equal term with Abe in my favorite list.
PS: I think that the reputation of Arthur Wellesley is vastly overrated. He might have contributed to the defeat of Napoleon but later his failure as a state man shown the limit of his skills. Just because Montgomery manage to defeat Rommel did not mean he was a better general, there lots more factors to evaluate a person skills that just the win/lost pattern. Wellesley was an 'ok' general but there far better than him in British history, ex: Henry V, John Churchill (Marlborough), James Wolfe, Horatio Nelson.
My favorite would be Abraham Lincoln for his achievements and moral righteousness. He was no fanatic but did not shy away to go to war when diplomacy and mediation had fail. A truly great state man, a shame he die so early.
I have also a lot of admiration for Washington. He is on equal term with Abe in my favorite list.
PS: I think that the reputation of Arthur Wellesley is vastly overrated. He might have contributed to the defeat of Napoleon but later his failure as a state man shown the limit of his skills. Just because Montgomery manage to defeat Rommel did not mean he was a better general, there lots more factors to evaluate a person skills that just the win/lost pattern. Wellesley was an 'ok' general but there far better than him in British history, ex: Henry V, John Churchill (Marlborough), James Wolfe, Horatio Nelson.
Originally Posted by Tristuskhan:
Of course I know him "there are two kinds of men on earth: those with a religion and no brain and those who have a brain but no religion". Hardcore religious sceptic, that's the word. A man well ahead of his time (10th-11th century AD). My knowledge in middle-age's philosophy is very narrow so I don't know if his positions were worked on and expanded. Do you have more info about him, Ibrahim?
he was from tanukh, lost his eyesight aged 3 or 4, and was the muslim world's equivalent of a goth.Of course I know him
"there are two kinds of men on earth: those with a religion and no brain and those who have a brain but no religion". Hardcore religious sceptic, that's the word. A man well ahead of his time (10th-11th century AD). My knowledge in middle-age's philosophy is very narrow so I don't know if his positions were worked on and expanded. Do you have more info about him, Ibrahim?nah just kidding on the last part; but he was a blind Arab: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ma%60arri
this should be a good start.
I agree with him that reason should guide life, but not necessarliy the rest of it-there are religious people who have intellect afterall; e.g Isaac Newton, Galileo, Biruni, Robert Bakker, etc.
you should check this guy out too-Darwin would eat his rear out (If the west knew about him, or he Arabs learned his work..just imagine):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Jahiz
Originally Posted by Melvish:
My favorite would be Abraham Lincoln for his achievements and moral righteousness.
My favorite would be Abraham Lincoln for his achievements and moral righteousness.
Originally Posted by :
Abraham Lincoln's Program of Black Resettlement
By Robert Morgan
Many Americans think of Abraham Lincoln, above all, as the president who freed the slaves. Immortalized as the "Great Emancipator," he is widely regarded as a champion of black freedom who supported social equality of the races, and who fought the American Civil War (1861-1865) to free the slaves.
While it is true that Lincoln regarded slavery as an evil and harmful institution, it also true, as this paper will show, that he shared the conviction of most Americans of his time, and of many prominent statesmen before and after him, that blacks could not be assimilated into white society. He rejected the notion of social equality of the races, and held to the view that blacks should be resettled abroad. As President, he supported projects to remove blacks from the United States.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.htmlAbraham Lincoln's Program of Black Resettlement
By Robert Morgan
Many Americans think of Abraham Lincoln, above all, as the president who freed the slaves. Immortalized as the "Great Emancipator," he is widely regarded as a champion of black freedom who supported social equality of the races, and who fought the American Civil War (1861-1865) to free the slaves.
While it is true that Lincoln regarded slavery as an evil and harmful institution, it also true, as this paper will show, that he shared the conviction of most Americans of his time, and of many prominent statesmen before and after him, that blacks could not be assimilated into white society. He rejected the notion of social equality of the races, and held to the view that blacks should be resettled abroad. As President, he supported projects to remove blacks from the United States.
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html
oh come on! I already know about this, but don't ruin all the other people's dreams-its their morphinehttp://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html
Gustaf II Adolf/Karl XII
Oliver Cromwell. Led (arguably) the world's first nationwide popular revolution, stopped the Three Kingdoms from becoming absolute monarchies, and organised an incredibly disciplined army way ahead of its time. Plus other more Backroomish reasons. 
Originally Posted by SwedishFish:
Gustaf II Adolf/Karl XII
good call there.Gustaf II Adolf/Karl XII
@PanzerJaeger : nice article you linked to, the reading was enjoyable.
But It didn't change my view of good old Abe. I like him because he was no fanatic but a great compromiser. He knew the majority of the Americans at the time would object equality between white and black(as outline by the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858) . His solution of relocation (back to Africa or to create a new colony) shown his great skill at compromising and get the best solution for everyone taking account current mentality at the time. It must be take into consideration.
In the end it is the result that history judge, and abolish slavery he did. It was a great step for humanity (and many more remained to be archived, even today there lot to do still).
He was also very successful at bringing back the country together after the civil war, again by showing his great skill at compromising.
It is his generous opening to the confederate states warrantied that there would not be a second civil war 10-20 years later. Lots of wars would have been avoid if they had follow this example. Only after WW2 they (finally) got the hint that repression and oppression is not a good way to turn your enemies into allies (and only because FDR died, else Germany and Japan would have been repress )
@Rhyfelwyr : Oliver Cromwell. I had totally forgotten to mention him. Although the behavior of some of his generals under his command in Ireland tainted his reputation. On par with Napoleon for his statesmanship. Still Good call.
PS: @PanzerJaeger, I'm doing research and reading (when i can find the time between, working, traveling, moving to a new place and playing ETW a bit) on the Offensive vs Defensive theories so we can start a wunderbare discussion about it. I'll start the thread next month if you did not started it already.
But It didn't change my view of good old Abe. I like him because he was no fanatic but a great compromiser. He knew the majority of the Americans at the time would object equality between white and black(as outline by the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858) . His solution of relocation (back to Africa or to create a new colony) shown his great skill at compromising and get the best solution for everyone taking account current mentality at the time. It must be take into consideration.
Originally Posted by :
If as the friends of colonization hope, the present and coming generations of our countrymen shall by any means succeed in freeing our land from the dangerous presence of slavery, and, at the same time, in restoring a captive people to their long-lost fatherland, with bright prospects for the future, and this too, so gradually, that neither races nor individuals shall have suffered by the change, it will indeed be a glorious consummation. ---Abraham Lincoln, January 16, 1850
You have to keep in mind he lived a democratic country and need to be elected to get the chance to change the system (and even get those laws approuved by the senate!). He had to compromise and "play the act". It show elevated moral values (and skillful diplomatics) to do so and it is far better than stage a "coup d'état" to impose changes, even if it is for the "greater good" (Napoleon)If as the friends of colonization hope, the present and coming generations of our countrymen shall by any means succeed in freeing our land from the dangerous presence of slavery, and, at the same time, in restoring a captive people to their long-lost fatherland, with bright prospects for the future, and this too, so gradually, that neither races nor individuals shall have suffered by the change, it will indeed be a glorious consummation. ---Abraham Lincoln, January 16, 1850
In the end it is the result that history judge, and abolish slavery he did. It was a great step for humanity (and many more remained to be archived, even today there lot to do still).
He was also very successful at bringing back the country together after the civil war, again by showing his great skill at compromising.
It is his generous opening to the confederate states warrantied that there would not be a second civil war 10-20 years later. Lots of wars would have been avoid if they had follow this example. Only after WW2 they (finally) got the hint that repression and oppression is not a good way to turn your enemies into allies (and only because FDR died, else Germany and Japan would have been repress )
@Rhyfelwyr : Oliver Cromwell. I had totally forgotten to mention him. Although the behavior of some of his generals under his command in Ireland tainted his reputation. On par with Napoleon for his statesmanship. Still Good call.
PS: @PanzerJaeger, I'm doing research and reading (when i can find the time between, working, traveling, moving to a new place and playing ETW a bit) on the Offensive vs Defensive theories so we can start a wunderbare discussion about it. I'll start the thread next month if you did not started it already.
Saladin, guy is a badass; gotta love those Saracens.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
Oliver Cromwell. Led (arguably) the world's first nationwide popular revolution, stopped the Three Kingdoms from becoming absolute monarchies, and organised an incredibly disciplined army way ahead of its time. Plus other more Backroomish reasons.
Oliver Cromwell. Led (arguably) the world's first nationwide popular revolution, stopped the Three Kingdoms from becoming absolute monarchies, and organised an incredibly disciplined army way ahead of its time. Plus other more Backroomish reasons.
Beat me to it. I am fascinated by him and King Charles I. Two great, yet highly flawed men, each in their own way.
Originally Posted by Ibrahim:
you should check this guy out too-Darwin would eat his rear out (If the west knew about him, or he Arabs learned his work..just imagine):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Jahiz
Ranking high in my own hall of fame now, thank you Ibrahim.you should check this guy out too-Darwin would eat his rear out (If the west knew about him, or he Arabs learned his work..just imagine):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Jahiz
Originally Posted by Tristuskhan:
Ranking high in my own hall of fame now, thank you Ibrahim.
and if you want more PWNage, just go to the lists of Arab and persian scientists-muslim and non muslim. either way, they rule. they are as interesting as greeks or romans-sometimes even more so..Ranking high in my own hall of fame now, thank you Ibrahim.
EDIT: you can find parachutes, sociology, anthropology, and whatever you fancy-even downright Aetheism, for your benifit.
Robert Guiscard.
Harald Hardråde.
Harald Hardråde.
So many. The Elder Moltke is somebody I just discovered recently, a very very interesting person - his long voyages in the Orient are highly enjoyable, a very open and intelligent mind. A brilliant leader of men too.
Originally Posted by Romanus:
Champion of Protestant europe.
That can be disputed with Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, Lion of the North, and leader of the Protestant cause in the Thirty Years War before meeting his end in battle.Champion of Protestant europe.
Hard to nail it down to just one.
Henry V (Nasty little SOB that he was.)
T.E. Lawrence
Scipio
Henry V (Nasty little SOB that he was.)
T.E. Lawrence
Scipio
Originally Posted by KarlXII:
That can be disputed with Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, Lion of the North, and leader of the Protestant cause in the Thirty Years War before meeting his end in battle.
Overrated, he may have perfected volley-tactics but in the end every battle was won because of superior numbers.That can be disputed with Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, Lion of the North, and leader of the Protestant cause in the Thirty Years War before meeting his end in battle.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Overrated, he may have perfected volley-tactics but in the end every battle was won because of superior numbers.
Oh no you di-int! You better have your sources ready because he's about to come down on you hard! Overrated, he may have perfected volley-tactics but in the end every battle was won because of superior numbers.
HA to make it even worse, the volley tactics the Swedes pride themselves on isn't Swedish, they adapted the Dutch tactics against the French, the only difference is that Gustav Adolf used a forward rotation instead of a backward (and didn't have to fight superior numbers)
Basil II Bulgaroctonus - Brilliant statesman and Byzantine Emperor, lead the Empire to its greatest glory
Other favourites are Salah al Din Ibn Ayyub (Saladin), Otto von Bismarck, Count Camillo Benso di Cavour, Erwin Rommel, Hannibal.
Other favourites are Salah al Din Ibn Ayyub (Saladin), Otto von Bismarck, Count Camillo Benso di Cavour, Erwin Rommel, Hannibal.
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval:
Basil II Bulgaroctonus - Brilliant statesman and Byzantine Emperor, lead the Empire to its greatest glory
they should have called him "faqqaa'ul3uyoon" instead of "bulgaroctonos"*Basil II Bulgaroctonus - Brilliant statesman and Byzantine Emperor, lead the Empire to its greatest glory
yeah he was awesome though.
*Bulgar-slayer
Originally Posted by Fragony:
HA to make it even worse, the volley tactics the Swedes pride themselves on isn't Swedish, they adapted the Dutch tactics against the French, the only difference is that Gustav Adolf used a forward rotation instead of a backward (and didn't have to fight superior numbers)
A shame that wasn't his only innovation, and a shame you made an oversimplification.HA to make it even worse, the volley tactics the Swedes pride themselves on isn't Swedish, they adapted the Dutch tactics against the French, the only difference is that Gustav Adolf used a forward rotation instead of a backward (and didn't have to fight superior numbers)
It is true, the "Dutch formation" was already developed. It called for a thinner line in order to put more fire on the enemy. Gustavus adopted this and took it further. Putting his men at about 5-6 ranks deep, as opposed to the original 10, it allowed even more fire and maneuverability. Additionally, whereas a normal deployment called for the formation of pikes in the center to avoid friendly fire, Gustavus put his muskets in front, with the pikes on the flanks and smattered around to support and ward off cavalry.
In a time where there was about 2 pikemen to every 1 musketeer, Gustavus had about 3 to 2.
In the typical deployment, cavalry was placed at the flanks, alone, to exploit flanking moves and fight enemy cavalry. In order to make sure his cavalry didn't fall from the German cavalry, he put additional units of pike and shot. This allowed him to drop a number of enemy horsemen, and when they reached the cavalry and pikemen, it allowed the cavalry to reform and fire their guns as well. It gave them an edge in combat, and one of the first uses of combined arms.
Gustavus often found artillery too large and cumbersome to apply to his idea of aggressive, mobile, warfare. Against tradition, most of his batteries were made up of 3 pound brass cannon, allowing mobile deployments and reactions.
All these reforms made maneuver and reaction easier as oppossed to other armies. The line formations allowed them to maneuver without spearing their own men, and able to reform his line fast, albiet with some confusion on the part of the pikemen who needed to get to the flanks.
Gustavus never favored one part of his army over another, whereas many other armies favored the noble cavalry. His musketeers could fire twice, possibly three, times faster than his enemy. His units were extensively cross trained, his cavalry could operate cannon, his pikemen could fire (Naturally, not at the same rate as his musketeers), and his musketeers could ride, if the situation called for it.
Gustavus Adolphus made a huge impact on the tactics of warfare, and, in my eyes, and the eyes of other general's such as Clausewitz and Napoleon, earned the title of the "Father of Modern Warfare".
Originally Posted by :
but in the end every battle was won because of superior numbers.
And? Breitenfeld. Look it up.but in the end every battle was won because of superior numbers.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO