StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Who do you regard as the most admirable historical pesonalities?

I'd say that Augustus, Boadicea and Kublai Khan would be mine.

weemadando wrote:I'd say that Augustus, Boadicea and Kublai Khan would be mine.

I thought Kublai Khan was a fictional character....well I guess that tells you how much historical knowlege I have locked away in my head

Dargos wrote:

weemadando wrote:I'd say that Augustus, Boadicea and Kublai Khan would be mine.

I thought Kublai Khan was a fictional character....well I guess that tells you how much historical knowlege I have locked away in my head

Marco Polo worked for him back in the day. Mentioned in Polo's book, as much as that can be believed.

Very few historical characters are actually worthy of praise. I can admire Ceasar for his political skill and generalship, but his other exploits are less admirable. I can admire Alexander the Great for his exceptional achievement to build a vast empire from the ground up in little more than ten years, but I can despise him for his lack of personal modesty and political skill, etc.

Former president Reagan is already looked back upon as a hero, while conservatives in britain looks back to the days of the Iron Lady and the Falkland war, while Gorbachev is missed by many in russia.

All of them were significant in history, but none of them achieved what they did without stepping on millions. I can admire them for their accomplishments, but I will never praise their actions.

nightmare wrote:Very few historical characters are actually worthy of praise. I can admire Ceasar for his political skill and generalship, but his other exploits are less admirable. I can admire Alexander the Great for his exceptional achievement to build a vast empire from the ground up in little more than ten years, but I can despise him for his lack of personal modesty and political skill, etc.

Former president Reagan is already looked back upon as a hero, while conservatives in britain looks back to the days of the Iron Lady and the Falkland war, while Gorbachev is missed by many in russia.

All of them were significant in history, but none of them achieved what they did without stepping on millions. I can admire them for their accomplishments, but I will never praise their actions.

It's because they're human. Most people do good things. But they do not always do good things. It's easy to idolize historical figures and praise them for their accomplishments while ignoring their less admirable qualities. Everyone has faults, no matter how good their actions were.

Laurel Aitken - The Godfather of Ska

Not Abraham Lincoln... hmm, I don't look up to anyone in history except for conquerers... Kahn, Alexander, ect.

neoolong wrote:

Dargos wrote:

weemadando wrote:I'd say that Augustus, Boadicea and Kublai Khan would be mine.

I thought Kublai Khan was a fictional character....well I guess that tells you how much historical knowlege I have locked away in my head :oops:

Marco Polo worked for him back in the day. Mentioned in Polo's book, as much as that can be believed.

We've also got records of him from other 12th century European "expeditions" into the east. Not to mention records of him corresponding with Pope Innocent the IV on diplomatic issues. As well as records of his existance from the libraries of Islam that weren't destroyed by those fucking crusaders.

Augustus. Lincoln. Madison. Sherman. Patton.

Ephipany...Ephanios...Eph-that Greek guy who smashed the Spartans.

Either Gaius Julius Caesar or Octavian (also known as Augusus). The former was an amazing Politician turned General turned Politician. His conquest of Gaul and Britain along with the compelte reformation of Rome as an Empire rather than a republic laid the very foundation of the Pax Romani that dominated most of the western world for most of the next half millenia.

Octavian, alternatively, actually built that Empire. He literally turned Rome from a modest capital to the center of the western world. The size, scope, and power of the Empire during his rule surpassed that of any other entity until the rise of the Spanish and British empires more than one and a half millenia later. had he not suffered setbacks in conquering Germany in 9 AD it is entirely conceivable that with Tiberius succeding him not but a half dozen years later the Empire would have expanded into Russia and maintained its vitality well into the early years of the second millenia. Rome, alone, of the first millenai powers would have had any chance at defending against both the expansionistic designs of the Caliphate and the Khan. In other words sans that setback it is entirely possible that the Empire Augustus built could have lasted until recent history.

Bodicea, Arthur Rex Quandom Futerues (Even if he was fictional), Robert (Robin) of Sherwood (I have read all of the different translations I could)

CmdrWilkens wrote:Octavian, alternatively, actually built that Empire. He literally turned Rome from a modest capital to the center of the western world. The size, scope, and power of the Empire during his rule surpassed that of any other entity until the rise of the Spanish and British empires more than one and a half millenia later. had he not suffered setbacks in conquering Germany in 9 AD it is entirely conceivable that with Tiberius succeding him not but a half dozen years later the Empire would have expanded into Russia and maintained its vitality well into the early years of the second millenia. Rome, alone, of the first millenai powers would have had any chance at defending against both the expansionistic designs of the Caliphate and the Khan. In other words sans that setback it is entirely possible that the Empire Augustus built could have lasted until recent history.

Thankyou! Someone else who supports my theory. I tried arguing this with a lecturer and others at my uni, saying that if they had pushed north to the coasts of Germany etc, and east to the Urals they wouldn't have faced many of the problems that brought about the fall.

THe Yosemite Bear wrote:Bodicea, Arthur Rex Quandom Futerues (Even if he was fictional), Robert (Robin) of Sherwood (I have read all of the different translations I could)

Robin Hood (or whatever his real name was) was a complete arsehole. Certainly not a hero. And definately not a hero of the people like the romanticised 18th century accounts would have you believe!

He wasn't "Rob from the rich and give to the poor..." That mofo was "Rob from everybody and kill anyone who tries to take my money away from me..."

I've got several.

Ludwig Van Beethoven. He is simply hands down the greatest musical genious the world has yet produced. Over the past two hundred years since his death, the power of his legend has only grown. Very few men can claim to be as dominant in their selected field as Beethoven has been in Classical music.

Napoleon Bonaparte. He would define what it meant to be a conqueror for almost one hundred years. He laid the groundwork for much of the present day European legal system, and no one needs to be reminded of his military genious.

Robert Edward Lee. Even one hundred years after his death, hicks from Georgia were still naming cars after him.

weemadando wrote:

THe Yosemite Bear wrote:Bodicea, Arthur Rex Quandom Futerues (Even if he was fictional), Robert (Robin) of Sherwood (I have read all of the different translations I could)

Robin Hood (or whatever his real name was) was a complete arsehole. Certainly not a hero. And definately not a hero of the people like the romanticised 18th century accounts would have you believe!

He wasn't "Rob from the rich and give to the poor..." That mofo was "Rob from everybody and kill anyone who tries to take my money away from me..."

I know, I have read most of the translations from the Older Scottish Versions, I still like the Rob from the Rich version of my childhood. Mind you the romantisiing of crude bandits is an old game. After all Bodicea put London to the torch etc.

weemadando wrote:

CmdrWilkens wrote:Octavian, alternatively, actually built that Empire. He literally turned Rome from a modest capital to the center of the western world. The size, scope, and power of the Empire during his rule surpassed that of any other entity until the rise of the Spanish and British empires more than one and a half millenia later. had he not suffered setbacks in conquering Germany in 9 AD it is entirely conceivable that with Tiberius succeding him not but a half dozen years later the Empire would have expanded into Russia and maintained its vitality well into the early years of the second millenia. Rome, alone, of the first millenai powers would have had any chance at defending against both the expansionistic designs of the Caliphate and the Khan. In other words sans that setback it is entirely possible that the Empire Augustus built could have lasted until recent history.

Thankyou! Someone else who supports my theory. I tried arguing this with a lecturer and others at my uni, saying that if they had pushed north to the coasts of Germany etc, and east to the Urals they wouldn't have faced many of the problems that brought about the fall.

It would have eliminated most of the barbarian threats, would have added wealth to the coffers AND if they had stopped the expansion of the Muslim Empire they stood a good chance of stopping the Mongol horde five centuries later. The Roman system for equipping its armies was just too damn efficient, someone once stated that the amazing thing about the Punic Wars wasn't that the Romans won it was that Carthage held on as long as it did.

I'm fond of Caesar. Sure, he marched his army on the city of Rome, but only to prevent his assassination. Pompeii would have had Caesar, one of Romes most important generals, killed.

When he entered Rome, he didn't come as a conqueror, but a liberator to free Rome from the tyranny of the rich and powerful. Yes he wanted power, yes he incited civil war. But what did he do when he entered Rome? He held a banquet. Not for the rich and powerful, but for the poor! The homeless!

And what on earth would the Roman people think of this? They voted him the absolute powers of a dictator! He was MADE dictator, by Rome herself! But wait, you say, did he abuse his powers? Kill those who opposed him? No. Not close. He made sure noone went hungry, and gave land to his army. All paid for with his OWN money, not the Republics.

When he asked to be elected dictator for life, the Senate had him assassinated. The Senate. Not the people, who were furious. Rome was disgusted! They burned down the houses of the senators who killed Caesar! Rome WANTED to be an Empire. It was the SENATE that wanted to rule, but the people wanted Caesar.

Caesar wasn't evil. Caesar was perhaps the one guiding light in the corrupt world that was Rome. And with his death, so went the only hope Rome had for being great yet again.

THe Yosemite Bear wrote: I know, I have read most of the translations from the Older Scottish Versions, I still like the Rob from the Rich version of my childhood. Mind you the romantisiing of crude bandits is an old game. After all Bodicea put London to the torch etc.

But Boadicea WAS cool.

I mean she watches her daughters raped and killed infront of her by the Romans then goes off an slaughters her way across occupied Britain killing ALL Romans that she encounters brutally...

Sure she was a psychopath, but damn - She was a DEDICATED psychopath.

CmdrWilkens wrote:It would have eliminated most of the barbarian threats, would have added wealth to the coffers AND if they had stopped the expansion of the Muslim Empire they stood a good chance of stopping the Mongol horde five centuries later. The Roman system for equipping its armies was just too damn efficient, someone once stated that the amazing thing about the Punic Wars wasn't that the Romans won it was that Carthage held on as long as it did.

Not only those, but the Russian steppes would have provided an excellent cropping area and would have lessened the Roman dependance on Egpyt for grain. One of the major problems in the later empire was under-production of food. This would have definately fixed that.

weemadando wrote:

THe Yosemite Bear wrote: I know, I have read most of the translations from the Older Scottish Versions, I still like the Rob from the Rich version of my childhood. Mind you the romantisiing of crude bandits is an old game. After all Bodicea put London to the torch etc.

But Boadicea WAS cool.

I mean she watches her daughters raped and killed infront of her by the Romans then goes off an slaughters her way across occupied Britain killing ALL Romans that she encounters brutally...

Sure she was a psychopath, but damn - She was a DEDICATED psychopath.

ANd like Cleo she poisons herself to avoid simular treatment from the Romans.

I certainly wouldn't praise Lee. He fought for secession, the dissolution of the Union, slaverly, et. all.


Sherman and Grant, on the other hand, rocked arse.

weemadando wrote: He wasn't "Rob from the rich and give to the poor..." That mofo was "Rob from everybody and kill anyone who tries to take my money away from me..."

IOW, he was one of the early capitalists...

I don't know about slavery. IIRC, Lincoln actually offered Lee a position in the Union army, but Lee couldn't bring himself to wage war against his home state.

Dude him and Little John were Samuel L. Jackson and Harvey Kieteil they were bad asses.

"Maid Marion" showed up much later, as a camp follower (take that folks she was a pro in the old stories)