Favourite Historical character

[d3a7hr0w]

In this topic you write the name of your favourite historical character.
Since i start the topic i'm going first
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.

[Charge]

And my is Gaius Julius Caesar!
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 ( )

[gregori99]

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.

[vladiator]

Caesar is probably my favourite too. Others are Peter the Great, Alexander the Great, Aleksandr Nevski, Suvorov..

[King of Kings]

Augustus he brought the pax romana to the Roman Empire and improved it further

[Shieldmaiden]

Charlemagne and Alexander the Great - because they built as much as they conquered.

[seireikhaan]

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.

[AntiochusIII]

In this topic you write the name of your favourite historical character.

Any historical character right?

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!"

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

[King Jan III Sobieski]

Jan III Sobieski (ancestral patriotism!)

Henry V of England

&

Martin Luther

et. al...

[Chaos Cornelius lucius]

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!!
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 )

[Kadagar_AV]

And my is Gaius Julius Caesar!
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 ( )

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).

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;)

[tarbanrael]

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!

[gregori99]

The general who handled night-fights so badly he was adviced never to attempt it again

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.

[Odin]

Subutai, pehaps the best general of the middle ages.

[El Diablo]

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?

[Kadagar_AV]

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:)

[IrishArmenian]

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.

[Out]

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.

[dknight]

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.

[Charge]

Well,

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).

interesting, and where did you find this??

Caesar was a good politician and MASTERED the art of propaganda

How do you think he can win war without it, being SUCH outnumbered? 50 000 against 2 000 000 ,ah ?
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!

[matte89]

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.

[Shieldmaiden]

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

He's certainly one of the great generals of history.

"Hannibal ad portas" indeed.

[Mithrandir]

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.

[Spartan JKM]

Hello everyone. This is my first post. I am enthused to be here - great site, visually and academically.

Yes, Scipio had to copy Hannibal's tactics to defeat him in the Battle of Zamas if I remember right...

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.

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

[Orb]

And my is Gaius Julius Caesar!
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 ( )

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.

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.

[VAE VICTUS]

Aristotle. He conquered AND categorized the world. His was the longest tyranny, not ending until Bacon came along. And even then he still echoes.

[Kadagar_AV]

spartan JKM, I just wanted to say that I really appreciated the post!

[Innocentius]

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

[Veho Nex]

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:)

I aggree bigggggg time with that one... stupid Ike... dumb general to choose montgomery over patton....

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?

[Orb]

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

The warmongers are the more 'interesting', obvious and 'impressive' characters.
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.