NationStates Jolt Archive

Greatest man in history? You decide, but provide an explanation please! I want whys and wheres etc.

Hugh Hefner.

Hugh Hefner.

LOL, I second that!

Ooh! Ooh!

--waves hands frantically--

I know this one:








Max Barry! :D

Otto Von Bismark, because he unified Germany, and revolutionised how to fight wars. he was also a highly respected statesman. pitty what Keiser Wilhelm II and the generations after did to Bizmark's good work.....

The problem witht his thread is that there are so many different types of great. Napoleon was a great general, which is different than de vinchi, the great artist and inventor. There's no way to compare the two.

Though I did always wonder what would happen if Nelson and Napoleon had somehow worked together. The result is kinda scar.

First and foremost would be Jesus of Nazareth.

But someone more contemporary...

Abraham Lincoln.

Just remember I am a U.S. citizen, before you attack me, many here believe he saved our Union.

Regards,
Gaar

The problem witht his thread is that there are so many different types of great. Napoleon was a great general, which is different than de vinchi, the great artist and inventor. There's no way to compare the two.

Though I did always wonder what would happen if Nelson and Napoleon had somehow worked together. The result is kinda scar.

Heh, I think Wellington and Nelson was a scarier combination. ;) And that's part of the test and the intrigue of this poll, I want to see what kind of greatness people are naturally drawn towards.

Oohhh!!!

Pick Me!!!

First and foremost would be Jesus of Nazareth.

But someone more contemporary...

Abraham Lincoln.

Just remember I am a U.S. citizen, before you attack me, many here believe he saved our Union.

Regards,
Gaar

That's a good thing? ;) Personally I think he's really, really overrated and it's a case of the right place at the right time. I don't remember any of his speeches being particularly fantastic but I'm aware he's something of a sacred cow in the US so I'd better not be critical.

Ooh! Ooh!

--waves hands frantically--

I know this one:








Max Barry! :D
Nice one to get in for your 1000th post Cat... You suck up! ;)

Just thought I'd make note of that for you... :p

Regards,
Gaar

now then gadges

depends what you mean by great.

adolf hitler was "great" at manipulation
rasputin was "great" at avoiding death
personally my vote goes to peter andre, coz he is a "great" big prick

That's a good thing? ;) Personally I think he's really, really overrated and it's a case of the right place at the right time. I don't remember any of his speeches being particularly fantastic but I'm aware he's something of a sacred cow in the US so I'd better not be critical.
Yeah, neither do I... :rolleyes:

The Gettysburg Address

Nov. 19, 1863
Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it as a final resting place for those who died here that the nation might live. This we may, in all propriety do. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have hallowed it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.

It is rather for us the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

i posted my reply before the poll was established. imho, i think it should be taken off. it would be interesting to see what some people would say if it was their own choice, not having to pick from a small list.

also, i would be changing mine to captain james cook. apart from discovering australia and new zealand, he covered a hell of a lot of the ocean in his travels

I believe the greatest person in history is Karl Marx who founded modern communism and made a massive contribution to the socialist struggle for equality and human rights. None of the people on the list are particularly great in my opinion although I voted for Winston Churchill because he was one of the few people to realise the extent of the threat posed by Hitler and he played an important part in the defeat of European fascism.

That's a good thing? ;) Personally I think he's really, really overrated and it's a case of the right place at the right time. I don't remember any of his speeches being particularly fantastic but I'm aware he's something of a sacred cow in the US so I'd better not be critical.
Or perhaps a few from his First Inagural...

“….Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritive manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.”

“In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”

“Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object….”

“While the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.”


“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.”

“…I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it.”

“…I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse.”

___________________________________________________________________________

“By the frame of the government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years.”

“My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing of value can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it.”

“In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to “preserve, protect, and defend it.”

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

Homer J. Simpson is the greatest man ever.

Yeah, neither do I... :rolleyes:

The Gettysburg Address

Nov. 19, 1863
Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it as a final resting place for those who died here that the nation might live. This we may, in all propriety do. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have hallowed it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.

It is rather for us the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

Read it, I personally don't think it compares to "We will fight them on the beaches" but there we are.

I believe the greatest person in history is Karl Marx who founded modern communism and made a massive contribution to the socialist struggle for equality and human rights. None of the people on the list are particularly great in my opinion although I voted for Winston Churchill because he was one of the few people to realise the extent of the threat posed by Hitler and he played an important part in the defeat of European fascism.
And whose Theories have yet to establish a succesful Government on the face of the Earth.

In my humble (or not so humble, as some think :p ) opinion.

Regards,
Gaar

Or perhaps a few from his First Inagural...

“….Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritive manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.”

“In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”

“Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object….”

“While the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.”


“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.”

“…I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it.”

“…I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse.”

___________________________________________________________________________

“By the frame of the government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years.”

“My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing of value can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it.”

“In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to “preserve, protect, and defend it.”

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”


It speaks nothing to me, it could be one of Bush's speeches from the tone and style. They're all very much in the same vein of mediocrity :P I can see how it might speak to an American though.

I personally don't think it compares to "We will fight them on the beaches" but there we are.

I also believe that Churchill made some of greatest speeches in history and here is a fuller version of that particular one:

"I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.

"At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty's Government - every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation.

"The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength.

"Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail.

"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

(Winston Churchill, June 4th 1940)

First of all, a great orator does not equal a great leader. second of all

a) the south broke away BECAUSE lincoln beame president

b)He suspended Habius Corpus!!! If anyone knows the slightest bit about law, they'll know that this is a big deal.

c) he had other civil rights violations, though they don't come to mind at the moment.

what did he do exactly that was so great besides speak well and be president during a war?

Read it, I personally don't think it compares to "We will fight them on the beaches" but there we are.

Hey, I loved Churchill, don't get me wrong. And I have read both...

But I personally believe that Lincoln was much better, in my opinion. Churchill was GREAT, Kennedy could deliver a speech too, and If you want to talk delivery, we could also call on the name of the "Great Communicator" Ronald Wilson Reagan. I have read them all, in depth, thank you...

We shall go on to the end; we shall fight on the seas and Oceans... We shall defend our Isle, whatever the costs may be... We shall NEVER SURRENDER!

I just thought Lincoln was much more eloquent in getting his point across. Some of his debates between him and Douglas are astounding...

People who don't understand Lincoln's position on Slavery BEFORE the War, and even before he ever became President, should read them.

Regards,
Gaar

EDIT: My citing of Churchill was from memory and not meant to be an exact rendition, as cited above.

First of all, a great orator does not equal a great leader. second of all

a) the south broke away BECAUSE lincoln beame president

b)He suspended Habius Corpus!!! If anyone knows the slightest bit about law, they'll know that this is a big deal.

c) he had other civil rights violations, though they don't come to mind at the moment.

what did he do exactly that was so great besides speak well and be president during a war?


I agree.

Homer J. Simpson is the greatest man ever.

"Homer, Homer Simpson, He’s the greatest guy in hist-ory! From the town of Springfield, he’s about to crash into a chestnut tree!"

...

Add Hugh Hefner and Homer Simpson to that list, pleeeeeeeease.

Hey, I loved Churchill, don't get me wrong. And I have read both...

But I personally believe that Lincoln was much better, in my opinion. Churchill was GREAT, Kennedy could deliver a speech to, and If you want to talk delivery, we could also call on the name of the "Great Communicator" Ronald Wilson Reagan. I have read them all, in depth, thank you...

We shall go on to the end; we shall fight on the seas and Oceans... We shall defend our Isle, whatever the costs may be... We shall NEVER SURRENDER!

I just thought Lincoln was much more eloquent in getting his point across. Some of his debates between him and Douglas are astounding...

People who don't understand Lincoln's position on Slavery BEFORE the War, and even before he ever became President, should read them.

Regards,
Gaar

Point is, even if he was a great orator as has been said he really didn't do that much beyond it.

One thing i love about churchill is his wit. I paraphase here, (i forgot the quote verbatum) so be forewarned

"When i was a child, my father took me to the circus. I was so excited to see the boneless wonder, but my father refused to let me see it, saying it was too scary. I have waited 50 years to see the boneless wonder, to see it now, sitting on the treasury bench in front of me"

one time, during one of the conferences (i think it was yalta) FDR went into churchill's room. churchill was dripping wet and naked and just out of the shower. FDR was totally embaressed. churchill responded "Mr. Roosevelt, the prime minister of britain has nothing to hide from the president of the united states"

in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

(Winston Churchill, June 4th 1940)
You know who he was talking about there, right? ;)

Regards,
Gaar

Point is, even if he was a great orator as has been said he really didn't do that much beyond it.

Lincoln?

Yeah, he saved our Union, and then got shot in the Head... :rolleyes:

Not a lot you can do after that.

Regards,
Gaar

One thing i love about churchill is his wit. I paraphase here, (i forgot the quote verbatum) so be forewarned

"When i was a child, my father took me to the circus. I was so excited to see the boneless wonder, but my father refused to let me see it, saying it was too scary. I have waited 50 years to see the boneless wonder, to see it now, sitting on the treasury bench in front of me"

one time, during one of the conferences (i think it was yalta) FDR went into churchill's room. churchill was dripping wet and naked and just out of the shower. FDR was totally embaressed. churchill responded "Mr. Roosevelt, the prime minister of britain has nothing to hide from the president of the united states"

There was another incident that was very funny...an aristocratic woman said to Churchill : "WInston, you are drunk!" he replied "Madam, I will not be drunk in the morning but you shall still be ugly." Top notch gag ;)

Obviously, he thought a coalition of Brazil, Mexico, Guatamala, and Belize were going to join the war and change the tide.

Lincoln?

Yeah, he saved our Union, and then got shot in the Head...

Not a lot you can do after that.

Regards,
Gaar

Who actually cares? Most people would rather he didn't save the Union. He didn't anyway, U.S Grant and the superior economy of the North did.

You know who he was talking about there, right? ;)

Regards,
Gaar

Doesn't mean we have to share the opinion.

people are saying that he saved our union. but how, pray tell, did he do that exactly? what did he do that anyone else wouldn't have? how do you justify the suspension of habius corpus

people are saying that he saved our union. but how, pray tell, did he do that exactly? what did he do that anyone else wouldn't have? how do you justify the suspension of habius corpus

I don't think you can. That's why I think Lincoln is vastly overrated. The Civil War in America on the whole was one of the worst fought in history with outdated equipment and inexperienced soldiers. To me, it was simply a case of the bigger batallions and the greater economy crushing the other.

Who actually cares? Most people would rather he didn't save the Union. He didn't anyway, U.S Grant and the superior economy of the North did.
I do, and you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am mine, right?

Regards,
Gaar

Yes, you are...but that's the whole point of debating. Respect one another's positions but still fight your own.

Doesn't mean we have to share the opinion.
And it doesn't mean we don't...

I didn't qoute him, just pointing out what he was talking about.

Regards,
Gaar

in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

(Winston Churchill, June 4th 1940)
You know who he was talking about there, right? ;)

Regards,
Gaar

Yes, of course. He was talking about the UK and France, which were the only two nations at that time involved in the fight against Nazi Germany which had already forced their murdereous and oppressive rule on many European nations and were attempting to do the same to the entire continent

Where's Einstein? Freud? Archimedes? Newton? They're all 100 times greater than this Washington nut or that Khan guy.


Men... pfffffff...

urantia, we can back up our beliefs with facts, can you? this isn't religion, you can't have just faith, you have to be able to back up your beliefs.

another thing that helped for a union victory was sherman's march to the sea. it really hurt the southern economy.

So what do you guys think would have happened if the lost order hadn't been lost?

Where's Einstein? Freud? Archimedes? Newton? They're all 100 times greater than this Washington nut or that Khan guy.


Men... pfffffff...

I agree, but I only had room for ten and you have to cater to American players even if there aren't any Americans who are particularly outstanding. ;)

I'd say we've done pretty good for 230 years

I don't think you can. That's why I think Lincoln is vastly overrated. The Civil War in America on the whole was one of the worst fought in history with outdated equipment and inexperienced soldiers. To me, it was simply a case of the bigger batallions and the greater economy crushing the other.
Wouldn't that same "Logic" apply to any Leader then?

Shall we go through the list?

Again, you are free to have any opinion and support it in any manner you wish. Please stop trying to say my opinion has no weight because you don't believe it does.

The forces mustered by the South were vastly underated and Northerners were unaware of how hard the average Southerner was willing to fight, basically for the Rights of the Rich Souther Whites.

So, I am fully willing to defend my position on Lincoln being the "Greatest Man in History" as I also cited his speeches before he became President, which espoused his dislike for Slavery.

I am entitled to think Lincoln the greatest in History, am I not?

I will continue to defend the position, if pressed. BUt again, why would you "press" me on my "opinion"?

I'm not saying that your opinion is wrong, am I?

Regards,
Gaar

personally my vote goes to peter andre, coz he is a "great" big prick
A Great Big Prick? :eek: *eyes light up in enthusiasm* Have you seen it?

Yes, of course. He was talking about Nazi Germany which had already forced their murdereous and oppressive rule on many European nations and were attempting to do the same to the UK and France, which were the only two nations at that time involved in the fight against fascist tyranny.
I meant in the quote... 'the new world...'

He is refering to US... :D

Regards,
Gaar

no, he was referring to THEM.

I meant in the quote... 'the new world...'

He is refering to US... :D

Regards,
Gaar

Complete nonsense. He was referring to the UK and France which were the only countries involved in the war against fascism at that time. His quote is from June 1940 and the USA didn't even enter the war until December 1941.

urantia, we can back up our beliefs with facts, can you? this isn't religion, you can't have just faith, you have to be able to back up your beliefs.
Ok...

FACT: the UK, under Churchill's Leadership was getting their "back end's" handed to them on the Western Front until the U.S. joined the War. And YOU are going to give credit to the saving of the UK and Wester Europe to Churchill solely, so you can somehow call him the "Greatest"?

And Churchill himself was not the greatest of strategic minds either. He had some good Generals, but he even thwarted some of their efforts when he should have been more supportive.

Regards,
Gaar

I voted George Washington from that special list.
He became first president of what turned out to be the greatest nation in the world ever.
He became president because at that time, he was the greatest slaver baron.
This explains a lot of what this greatest nation of the world ever actually is.
:(

Complete nonsense. He was only referring to the UK and France which were the only countries involved in the war against fascism. His quote is from 1940 aqnd the USA didn't even enter the war until the end of 1941.
That's why he say's...

"and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

Care to explain who that last part is talking about?

I believe it is understood by all, just want to make sure you are trying to say it is not.

Regards,
Gaar

I voted George Washington from that special list.
He became first president of what turned out to be the greatest nation in the world ever.
He became president because at that time, he was the greatest slaver baron.
This explains a lot of what this greatest nation of the world ever actually is.
:(

Greatest? I believe the Roman, British and Even Napoleonic empires were more powerful at their peak.

That's why he say's...

"and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

Care to explain who that last part is talking about?

I believe it is understood by all, just want to make sure you are trying to say it is not.

By "old" and "new" world he was not referring to Europe and the countries settled by Europeans but was instead talking about a "new" world based on democracy and respect for human rights which would replace the "old" world of tyranny and genocide which the Nazis were trying to force on the people of Europe. As I said before he couldn't possibly have meant the USA due to the date he made the speech.

I voted George Washington from that special list.
He became first president of what turned out to be the greatest nation in the world ever.
He became president because at that time, he was the greatest slaver baron.
This explains a lot of what this greatest nation of the world ever actually is.
:(
And it seems you don't know a whole lot about how he felt on the matter.

Care to educate yourself?

http://historynet.com/ah/blwashington2/

Washington had just completed a task that seemingly resolved an issue that had troubled him for decades. It was on that day that the former president finished writing his last will and testament, which spelled out his directions for freeing the more than 100 enslaved human beings that he personally owned. Much more than just a functional legal instrument, the will served as Washington's final message to his country, and the manumission clause represented one of the most symbolic acts of his long and distinguished career in public service.

http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=26184

In the last year of the war and thereafter, more attention was spent by Washington on the issue of slavery. On February 5, 1783, Washington received a letter from Marquis de Lafayette, whom Washington considered both a friend and a son, that stated, "Let us unite in purchasing a small estate, where we may try the experiment to free the negroes, and use them only as tenants. Such an example as yours might render it a general practice..." (Sparks v.3, p.547). It is doubtful that Lafayette would have proposed this idea unless he knew that Washington had strong views on seeing the elimination of slavery. Washington wrote back to Lafayette on April 5, "The scheme... to encourage the emancipation of the black people of this Country from that state of Bondage in which. they are held, is a striking evidence of the benevolence of your Heart. I shall be happy to join you is so laudable a work..." (Fitzpatrick v.26, p.300).

I never said that Churchill was the greatest leader ever. He was a good leader, yes, but not the greatest. I'm saying that Lincoln wasn't that great of a leader and doesn't deserve the hype.


George Washington was a fair general, but was nothing special. However, he was a charismatic leader, and held the nation together many times in the beginning. He once single handedly stopped a revolt by disgruntled army officers in the early years.

By "old" and "new" world he was not referring to Europe and the countries settled by Europeans but was instead talking about a "new" world based on democracy and respect for human rights which would replace the "old" world of tyranny and genocide which the Nazis were trying to force on the people of Europe. As I said before he couldn't possibly have meant the USA due to the date he made the speech.
He most definitely was by stating that even if the UK fell they would continue the struggle from the 'territories'... "until the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue" What do you think he is saying there?

And if you don't believe me, then perhaps you should ask an Historian or two...

Regards,
Gaar

Europaland, what about the lend-lease act? FDR wanted to enter WWII from the beginning, he just knew the people weren't ready. Everyone knew there was a chance that the americans might get involved. The germans feared it. once, hitler was talking to an aide about america joining the war, and hitler said "all america is good for is making refrigerators" and the aide responded "i fear anyone who can make refrigerators taht well" (also paraphrased, be warned)

I never said that Churchill was the greatest leader ever. He was a good leader, yes, but not the greatest. I'm saying that Lincoln wasn't that great of a leader and doesn't deserve the hype.

George Washington was a fair general, but was nothing special. However, he was a charismatic leader, and held the nation together many times in the beginning. He once single handedly stopped a revolt by disgruntled army officers in the early years.
And so who is it you have said is "Greatest"?

Or are you here to just berate other peoples choices and don't care to give an answer to the Thread's question because you don't want your own choice berated in the manner you are berating others?

Regards,
Gaar

gaar, in what way do you want me to define "greatest?" politically, militarily, as a person, as a leader, what?

I was in Mt Vernon once.
Washington was certainly not to be compared to Hitler.
I was in Theresienstadt too. (the camp)
Looked pretty much the same except for the lawn and the roses.
But now I have you to educate me.

Damn, I swore to myself I'll never ever get involved in such a discussion again.
Been there too, far too often. :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

He most definitely was by stating that even if the UK fell they would continue the struggle from the 'territories'... "until the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue" What do you think he is saying there?

And if you don't believe me, then perhaps you should ask an Historian or two...

Regards,
Gaar

Churchill was still not referring to the USA which had consistently stated that they had no intention of joining the war even if Roosevelt himself may have supoorted it. By talking about the "power and might" of the "new world" he is likely to have been saying that the fight against tyranny and to create a better world will eventually succeed through the will of the people of the UK, France and other European and commonwealth countries. He may have hoped to have help from the USA but he knew they were unlikely to join the war and certainly wouldn't have made a speech to the House of Commons in 1940 to say they were going to help liberate Europe.

Europaland, what about the lend-lease act? FDR wanted to enter WWII from the beginning, he just knew the people weren't ready. Everyone knew there was a chance that the americans might get involved. The germans feared it. once, hitler was talking to an aide about america joining the war, and hitler said "all america is good for is making refrigerators" and the aide responded "i fear anyone who can make refrigerators taht well" (also paraphrased, be warned)

It is true that the USA did give some degree of help to the UK from the start of the war but there was no sign that they would become directly involved and in the Democratic Party conference in 1940 Rossevelt pledged that the USA would not take part in the war. It was not until the USA was attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbour at the end of 1941 that they they joined the war in rertaliation.

Odoaker. For disposing of Romulus Augustulus the last Roman emperor. Thus ending the Roman era.

What is greatness, is it the ability to lay waste to all of your enemies or is it about who you are.
How do one compare a brutal general that conquers half the world, with a sage that sits under a tree and become enlightened. Personally I hold the later in higher regard, and would have liked it if a great number of people were included. In my view, neither of the mentioned people would hold out in greatness compared to the Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tzu, Socrates, Pythagoras, or all of the other similar characters who both influenced the world trough their own ideas and showed great character in the process (staying true to and mastering themselves). However lets take each of the persons on the list one by one.

Winston Churchill: Undoubtedly he was the right man for the job, his determination and bravery was instrumental for Britain’s ability to hold up against the pressure from the third reich. Despite of this, Churchill was in many ways a rather dubious character. He never succeeded as a peacetime prime minister, during the war he interfered to much with the generals, he was a drunk, and he had some skeletons in the closet from WW1. I am grateful for what he did in WW2, but that doesn’t qualify him for the title of the greatest man in world history.

Charlemagne: In some ways Charlemagne was truly great, by making his empire the preserver of the last remnants of antiquity and by returning some level of order to Western Europe he became the architect of Europe. But I am not going to call him the greatest ever, that would be way to Eurocentric and would not take into account that his system of government was unable to cope with the later barbarian invasions and thus developed into feudalism.

Stalin: He industrialised Russia and created a first class economical power, other than that he was a bloody tyrant that deserves to burn a few million years in the lower levels of hell. His industrialisation program costed millions of lives, his extermination of the officers in the red army almost enabled Hitler to take Russia, and his oppression of the alternatively minded was an incredibly sad moment in history. All in all, Stalin is more of candidate for the title of the worst man in history.

Alexander the Great: Yes was a great general and yes what he did was amazing, nobody can dispute the fact that Alexander was a bold and innovative leader. But Alexander was also an egomaniacal drunk, who killed one of his most loyal friends because of a huge farther complex. Alexander may have conquered the world, but he never conquered himself.
On top of this, Alexander was never able to stabilize his waste empire and made a great blunder by marching his army into a dessert after the Indian campaign (possibly because he was angry at his men). A truly great leader would have known when to stop and start stabilize his empire, Alexander never realised this (planning new campaigns right until his death).
Alexander was a great conquer, but as a man he was a mix between a demigod and a beast.

Nelson: Great commander, but what did he do other than fighting.

Napoleon: Great general and administrator, but he also had to much of an ego and like Alexander he did not know when to stop (even thou the European monarchs dident make it easier either). His Russian blunder, his cowardly retreat from Egypt and his lack of diplomatic tact concerning the blockade against Britain (and the subsequent invasion of Spain) are all things that makes his greatness considerably smaller.

Da Vinci: Great painter and inventor, great in his own field but as far as I know also unable to find happiness for himself. Also if being an inventor is enough to be the greatest in the history of the world, then the greatest man in world history must be that lucky caveman who invented the use of fire or something similar.

Shakespeare: Excellent writer, a legend in his own field of work. We do however not know how much influence the rest of his theatre group had on his writings, and to be honest I don’t think writing plays is enough to be qualified as the greatest man in the history of mankind. Also what about Homer, he is ever bit as great as Shakespeare.

George Washington: A great leader and a man with a strong character, I like him very much. But again this is about the title of the greatest man in the history of the world, and you really need to show a lot to get such a title.

Ghenghis Khan: Great and innovative general, a ruthless diplomat, and together with Alexander he is the conquer of all time. But he wasn’t the creator of a new great culture such as Alexander (Hellenism) or a preserver such as Charlemagne, nor did he create an empire that were to leave anything beautiful behind for future generation. Also Ghenghis Khan was brutal, and I don’t equate greatness with brutality. So like Alexander he is an exceptionally great conquer, but he falls short when it comes to creating a positive lasting legacy.

My conclusion is that even thou there is some great individuals on the list, none of them will get my vote. Finally I do find it interesting that the only none westerner on the list is a barbarian conquer, what about Saladin, Gandhi, or other such leaders?

*snip*
Well, I did say that Jesus of Nazareth came first and foremost with me...

This is because it is indisputable that he has had the largest influence on the largest number of people throghout History, bar none.

But I really didn't want to get into a Religious debate on this Thread... :rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

I voted Shakespeare but in reality I think that Christopher Marlowe would get my vote. Edward II is easily as good a play as Macbeth, and Marlowe wrote that when Shakespeare was still a young 'upstart crowe' and 'the only shakes-scene in the country'. I thereby rest my case.

Well, I did say that Jesus of Nazareth came first and foremost with me...

This is because it is indisputable that he has had the largest influence on the largest number of people throghout History, bar none.

But I really didn't want to get into a Religious debate on this Thread... :rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

I don’t know about that, if you look at it from that perceptive the greatest man would proberly be Zoroaster or Akhenaton.

That list is comprised of eight warmongerers, an overrated playwright, and Leonardo da Vinci.

I'm going with da Vinci.

personnally, I think Douglas adams is the greatest :)

Abraham Lincoln.

Just remember I am a U.S. citizen, before you attack me, many here believe he saved our Union.

Regards,
Gaar

Just an interesting point about Abraham Lincon. Many Americans celebrate the fact that he ended the slave trade but ignore Alexander II's emancipation of the sefs in Russia, which was done earlier, freed more slaves and had no accompanying civil war.

As for the greatest person ever, Jesus bar none

That's why he say's...

"and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

Care to explain who that last part is talking about?

I believe it is understood by all, just want to make sure you are trying to say it is not.

Regards,
Gaar



Winston churchill also said "I may be drunk but that doesn't make you any less ugly"

What about scientists (e.g. Albert Einstein)?

Yo momma.

</standard answer>

As for the greatest person ever, Jesus bar none
Yeah, I believe I have said that several times now... :p

But it is nice to see that "some" agree. :D

Regards,
Gaar

I'd go for either of the two Isaacs:
Newton, for advancing human society and technology by such an enormous leap that no-one else has had such an effect before or since.
or:
Hayes, cause 'Theme from Shaft' is the coolest, funkiest song ever. Also 'In pursuit of the Pimpmobile' rates as the coolest song title (and definitely in the top ten for coolest songs).

Winston churchill also said "I may be drunk but that doesn't make you any less ugly"
Not quite.
Bessie Braddock (to Winston Churchill): "Winston, you're drunk."
Churchill: "Bessie, you're ugly. But tomorrow I shall be sober."

Ghengis.



He'd fuck you up good.

my vote goes for Johan Gutenburg

Jesus Christ.

Complete nonsense. He was referring to the UK and France which were the only countries involved in the war against fascism at that time. His quote is from June 1940 and the USA didn't even enter the war until December 1941.

Do you know what you're talking about?

I'm sorry, but the quote is;

we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

I've bolded the most relevant part. France had already fallen/was falling to the Nazis, and Britain was one of the last remaining free places in Europe. So, pray tell, in the event that Britain fell, how are she and France going to be liberating anyone? They're not; Churchill was saying that the British Empire would continue, and that the United States would, he believed, enter the war and liberate the European, and specifically British, people.

I've studied that speech extensively, and my entire English class, teachers included, agreed on that interpretation. Learn to read, and accept that Churchill knew how powerful the US was, and that their help could swing the war, even if it looked unlikely they would enter at that time. (Although Roosevelt's Land Lease act plainly showed they wanted to help, but the US people wouldn't support another war like the Great War.)

I really don't think any stretch of the imagination classes the UK and France as the 'new world'.

Anyways, I have to go with Freiherr Manfred Von Richthofen, because he's just cool. And that's as good a judgement as any.

Where's Einstein? Freud? Archimedes? Newton? They're all 100 times greater than this Washington nut or that Khan guy.


Men... pfffffff...

Washington, I'll give you was a nutcase but Temogin (genghis kahn) unified a nation more extreem in its ferocity of clan fighting than Afganistan conquered one of the oldest, most powerful societies ever, created a nation out of what by all rights should have been utter chaos and was a /political/ powerhouse in both internal and external government. He was a dignitary, a negociator, a tactician, and a motivator.

Freud, a real perv if you look at his personal writings, has no place on this list since the majority of his theories are outdated or just plain wrong.

And yet I still did not vote for any of the men I've talked of, instead i chose a man before his time who had designed possible flight centuries before the wright brothers; DeVinci

First and foremost would be Jesus of Nazareth.

Why?????

Greatest? I believe the Roman, British and Even Napoleonic empires were more powerful at their peak.


Ummm NO!!!! all of those empires were either regional shortlived or weak. each one challenges the United States in certain areas that demonstrate and empire; land mass, control and duration, but none of them are able to do all three to the level that the USA has managed.

I believe Churchill was talking about the United States entering the war to assist. After all, Churchill's mother was American.

CHURCHILL'S AMERICAN HERITAGE
By Winston S. Churchill

WHILE recently assembling my grandfather's writings on America into a single volume entitled The Great Republic (reviewed in this issue. Ed.), I used it as the opportunity to research further my family's American forebears.

Winston Churchill was half American by birth - a fact of which he was deeply proud. In his first address to a joint session of the United States Congress, on 26 December 1941, he teased the assembled Senators and Representatives with the mischievous suggestion, "If my father had been American and my mother British, instead of the other way 'round, I might have got here on my own!"

Jesus Christ.

I'll second that

Why?????


Something about the most practiced religeon in the world being named after him, having more arguments about him and his beliefs than any of the other mortal men /by far/. BIG influence, always will be.

Greatest Man Rankings (can't believe you forgot #1...)

1. Jesus Christ (gave his life for all of us)
2. Abraham Lincoln (saved the Union, abolished slavery, etc.)
3. George Washington/Thomas Jefferson (and the Revolutionary gang)
4. Einstein/Socrates/Newton/Voltaire etc. (insert thinker/scientist here)
5. Martin Luther King, Jr./Gandhi (taught peace in a time of grave struggle)
6. Alfred the Great (unified England)
7. Simon Bolivar (freed much of South America from Spain)
8. Alexander the Great (responsible for early culture-spread)
9. Mozart/Houdini/Beethoven/John Lennon (insert favorite entertainer here)
10.Charlemagne (perhaps the best ruler of medieval europe, with AtG)
-------------------------
lol... really tough list to do, given all the great MEN in the history of the world.

of course, then there's John I, who signed the single-most important non-biblical document in the history of the world: the Magna Carta.

(even though he was half-forced into it.. he did sign it, forever altering the future of the Western world.)

You really can't judge the men listed in the poll because each contributed to society in an equally great way. Without them, our world would be a drastically different place. The only person who can top them, was born of a virgin (but I don't think we are counting Him as an option). For worldly leaders.. a person I personally feel should be added to a list of greatest was Hitler. Yea, he was a bad person, and did try and kill the Jews, Gypsies, and half german half african people (and ect.) He really was a great leader to have fooled the world for so long, and to have taken such a minority, and try and overtake Europe. The man has my utmost respect.

... However I DON'T agree with the particular way he set about taking over the world, mind you.

Hmmmmm... Jesus did invent the table.... That makes a compelling case for him...

Hugh Hefner.
Amen to that.

Hmmmmm... Jesus did invent the table.... That makes a compelling case for him...

*news flash* Jesus did more than just EVENT THE TABLE. Look at how Christianity has spread through out the world. True, Islam follows behind it, but Christianity has made such a vital impact on the world, all from the death and then resurection of ONE man.

Hmmmmm... Jesus did invent the table.... That makes a compelling case for him...

saviour of the world, author/purveyor of probably at least half of our more generally accepted ethical codes, etc... impressive, i'd say.

(darn, i didn't want to state the obvious come-back, but crap, it's early and i am in a rhetorical mood. hehe)

Norman Borlaug (http://www.reason.com/0004/fe.rb.billions.shtml).

That was easy.

Its Stewey from Family Guy. God bless the little bastard, ya gotta admire him!

*news flash* Jesus did more than just EVENT THE TABLE. Look at how Christianity has spread through out the world. True, Islam follows behind it, but Christianity has made such a vital impact on the world, all from the death and then resurection of ONE man.

Hey, I saw the passion of the christ so I consider myself an expert on the subject.


(and it's invent, not event)

Hey, I saw the passion of the christ so I consider myself an expert on the subject.


(and it's invent, not event)
The passion is nothing but a waek reflection on the true live and suffering of our messiah Brian.

The passion is nothing but a waek reflection on the true live and suffering of our messiah Brian.

You win.

The guy who invented the fire, and that other guy who invented the wheel.

Maybe the first ape that went on it's legs only would be a good choice.

*lol thanks for the correction I'm a terrible speller sometimes*

Sir Thomas Crapper.
His invention extended everybody's life by a good 10 or 15 years.

You win.
:D YES!!!!

saviour of the world, author/purveyor of probably at least half of our more generally accepted ethical codes, etc... impressive, i'd say.

(darn, i didn't want to state the obvious come-back, but crap, it's early and i am in a rhetorical mood. hehe)

never mind, someone else took it seriously enough for me to have some fun with it :p . I actually did find that a rather amusing part of the POC, and used their 'outlandish claim that Jesus invented the table' as a reason the movie was a lie.

First and foremost would be Jesus of Nazareth.

But someone more contemporary...

Abraham Lincoln.

Just remember I am a U.S. citizen, before you attack me, many here believe he saved our Union.

Regards,
Gaar

Mr Lincoln was the worst president in the history of these United States. The only person to split the nation and plunge us into Civil War. The only positive thing about his presidency was the Emancipation Proclaimation which freed the slaves but it wasn't to be nice - it was only done to cripple the South economically and cause internal rebellion within the Confederate States.

I'm a History Professor in Pennsylvania by the way...

Its Stewey from Family Guy. God bless the little bastard, ya gotta admire him!

"What the deuce? It appears my wee-wee has been stricken with rigor motis!"

Mr Lincoln was the worst president in the history of these United States. The only person to split the nation and plunge us into Civil War. The only positive thing about his presidency was the Emancipation Proclaimation which freed the slaves but it wasn't to be nice - it was only done to cripple the South economically and cause internal rebellion within the Confederate States.

I'm a History Professor in Pennsylvania by the way...

Yes but... isn't it true that Lincoln never went into presidency with the intention of aboloshing slavery? However, a civil war was inevitable in the scheme of things. Had it not occured, the abolishment of slavery and the future fight for civil rights would have been postponned and which would have changed other critical events in our world's history.

*I LOVE history!*

Mr Lincoln was the worst president in the history of these United States. The only person to split the nation and plunge us into Civil War. The only positive thing about his presidency was the Emancipation Proclaimation which freed the slaves but it wasn't to be nice - it was only done to cripple the South economically and cause internal rebellion within the Confederate States.

I'm a History Professor in Pennsylvania by the way...

you are unequivocally wrong.

The South, um, seceeded, state by state. They didn't want their "culture" to be harmed. Of course, their culture included slavery, which they thought Lincoln might threaten (see, Republicans back then were far more likely to be abolitionists than were democrats... many democrats actually didn't give a crap about the Civil War or the secession of the South.. or slavery, for that matter)

Lincoln was our GREATEST president, sir. I certainly hope you're not spreading your revisionist (almost certainly liberal-biased...) poison to your students.

Facts:

He DID save the union, by not allowing the South to seceed. Had there been a democrat or non-unionist president in place of Lincoln, the Confederate States of America might still be a solvent nation.

He DID sign the EP, although he says he would have done ANYTHING to save the union... saving the union was his #1 priority. (..having read a few letters in Paige Smith's "Trial By Fire")

and why the HELL is STALIN on this list?

Stalin's hands are as bloody as HITLER's, in terms of slaying innocent people for no good reason.

Yes but... isn't it true that Lincoln never went into presidency with the intention of aboloshing slavery? However, a civil war was inevitable in the scheme of things. Had it not occured, the abolishment of slavery and the future fight for civil rights would have been postponned and which would have changed other critical events in our world's history.

*I LOVE history!*


I still hold firm that Mr Lincoln was the worst president in the history of the USA.

As for civil war being inevitable, it's always looming when hard-nosed zero compromise individuals seize power and try to impose their will. Remember that we were originally united under the Articles of Confederation before the Constitution came along and we abandoned that without a Civil War - Lincoln made war much much more probable.

Also, the Civil War and the end of Slavery have really very little to do with each other except they they happened about the same time. The Civil War was not fought about slavery, it was about states' rights only.

On Civil Rights - Zero progress happened with civil rights for almost a century after the Emancipation Proclaimation. like I mentioned earlier, it was only a wartime tactic to cripple the enemy. that's why it was ignored for so long...

Just a suggestion.. they acutally have a book that ranks the president in order from greatest to least... you should prolly read it... cause Lincoln's not last.

Uh... where's Jesus? He probably had a greater effect on the world than any one man

I agree. Jesus is my homie =p

First and foremost would be Jesus of Nazareth.

But someone more contemporary...

Abraham Lincoln.

Just remember I am a U.S. citizen, before you attack me, many here believe he saved our Union.

Regards,
Gaar

Well If Your Going To Pick Jesus, Then I Pick Superman

you are unequivocally wrong.

The South, um, seceeded, state by state. They didn't want their "culture" to be harmed. Of course, their culture included slavery, which they thought Lincoln might threaten (see, Republicans back then were far more likely to be abolitionists than were democrats... many democrats actually didn't give a crap about the Civil War or the secession of the South.. or slavery, for that matter)

Republicans did not oppose slavery, per se. They opposed the extension of slavery, but not the franchise itself.

He DID save the union, by not allowing the South to seceed. Had there been a democrat or non-unionist president in place of Lincoln, the Confederate States of America might still be a solvent nation.

He DID sign the EP, although he says he would have done ANYTHING to save the union... saving the union was his #1 priority. (..having read a few letters in Paige Smith's "Trial By Fire")

He didn't "save" the Union, he forced it together at gunpoint.

Thankfully our anti-Lincoln "professor" is in the minority. I would imagine his motive is a political one, since Lincoln is widely recognized as the greatest Republican president (if not the greatest president, period, which he is to many --if not most-- Americans).

I voted Winston Churchill because I didn't see George Washington until after I voted. Duh elle.

Also, the Civil War and the end of Slavery have really very little to do with each other except they they happened about the same time. The Civil War was not fought about slavery, it was about states' rights only.

A quite extraordinary claim. While it is certainly true that the civil war was not a direct result of the abolitionist movement, and the North did not fight in the name of abolition, it is quite clear that abolition was a direct result of the civil war. They did not just happen 'about the same time.'

It is also quite clear that the issue that brought about secession, and therefore the issue of states' rights, was slavery. To be precise, it was the spread of slavery to new states. To say that the war was fought about "states' rights only" is absurd, because issues around slavery were at the heart of it.

Frangland... Hey you live in Nashville! I live like an hour away from there (only in KY) I'm going to the steven curtis chapman concert in Nashville next Saturday.

Frangland... Hey you live in Nashville! I live like an hour away from there (only in KY) I'm going to the steven curtis chapman concert in Nashville next Saturday.

cool. are you a convicted felon?

hehe j/k

If you want to grab a beer or something that'd be fine with me.

send me a message if you'd like.

Ummm NO!!!! all of those empires were either regional shortlived or weak. each one challenges the United States in certain areas that demonstrate and empire; land mass, control and duration, but none of them are able to do all three to the level that the USA has managed.

Not at all. The USA isn't close to complete domination of the world. Russia and Canada more land mass, The EU and China could take us on militaristicly, many nations have economies that are close to ours, and although we are the most powerful, the seconds aren't very far behind.

Rome was definitely more powerful, and I think Britian was about as powerful. Then again, there are nuclear weapons. But the US doesn't even have the most of those right now.

Stop just giving in to blind nationalism, use facts.

I sent you a telegram.

One thing I personally can't wait to see is the Greatest Person ever on TV. Many nations are doing polls on tele and electing a winner. The First was the British, which I watched and voted for Winston Churchill, and the top 10 was;
10; Oliver Cromwell
9; Lord Nelson
8; John Lennon
7; Elizabeth I
6; Sir Isaac Newton
5; William Shakespeare
4; Charles Darwin
3; Lady Diana Spencer, Princess Of Wales
2; Isambard Kingdom Brunel
1; Sir Winston Churchill

Then came the German vote, won by Konrad Adeneauer, then Iceland, although I'm not sure who won. South Africa was won by Nelson Mandela, Holland was Vincent Van Gogh, and the Chinese and French are polling at the middle east. Italy, The Middle East, and The USA are voting soon, and, as Jeremy Clarkson put it, I can't wait until the Americans vote, and Tom Cruise wins.:D

Didn't like Biography magazine do a top hundred famous people thing a while back?? Cuz i remember we had to do a report on the top ten people we felt most influential in our world in my History class. I forget who was first... dang it!

Ummm NO!!!! all of those empires were either regional shortlived or weak. each one challenges the United States in certain areas that demonstrate and empire; land mass, control and duration, but none of them are able to do all three to the level that the USA has managed.

Ok, you claim the United States is the Greatest Empire Of all time? B*llcks. The British Empire is the Greatest Empire the world has ever seen or is likely to see ever again. Duration? Lets see if the US can keep up control of the world for nearly 500 years, beginning in Elizabeth I's time, and soon America was controlled by Britain. Control, how did Britain manage to keep away from any major uprisings until the late 1800's. And as for Land Mass? You say that The USA is larger than the British Empire was. Tell me, is the US 1/4 of the Globe? NO! Not one empire has ever been as large as the British Empire. And why? Because no-one would dare touch Britain. Can you say that about the USA, with them desperate to stay ahead of China and, before that, The Soviet Union. So, was the British Empire weak, controlling Canada, Australia, India, South Africa, and America? I think not. Is 500 years shortlived, when compared to 50 years of US domination? Regional? Australia is the other side of the world for Christs sake. So before you criticise any nation and even attempt to compare the USA to it, please get your facts right. :sniper:

Didn't like Biography magazine do a top hundred famous people thing a while back?? Cuz i remember we had to do a report on the top ten people we felt most influential in our world in my History class. I forget who was first... dang it!

Sorry, I'm not American, but Churchill gets my vote every time as Greatest ever. Greatest American? Probably Thomas Edison, or Roosevelt. German should have been Einstein. Italy should be Giulo Cesare, or Julius Cesar. The Chinese will be Chairman Mao, and the French are stupid because neither Joan Of Arc or Napoleon have made the top 10, and neither has Louis XIV, the Sun King. Diana shouldn't have been in the top 10 in Britain, and I'm not sure about Lennon either.

Lord Francis Bacon

As Voltaire said of him:
The most singular and the best of all his pieces is that which, at this time, is the most useless and the least read, I mean his Novum Scientiarum Organum. This is the scaffold with which the new philosophy was raised; and when the edifice was built, part of it at least, the scaffold was no longer of service.

and as he said

Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books.

I would think that it is a tie between Gorbachev and Reagan....but that's just me...

Someone commented in the early pages they voted Winston Churchhill because he stood against European Facism but prefered the father of Communism Karl Marx. As someone pointed out, that system has always been a failure and what was Stalin? Eurasian fascism in okay? The shining example of Communism murdered millions of their own citizens.

George Washington led the Continental Army. Kept the Army on the run until it was ready to fight and decisively won at the time of his choosing. He was the United States President refusing the offer to be King. Served 8 years and stepped back into private life.

As far as Lincoln being lowsy...is that a beauty college you teach at? Lincoln was unpopular in his day. He like Winston Churchhill, obfuscated facts and bent the rules to save the Republic. He was spurned in the North because his generals were not aggressive enough, he fired them. Finally put Grant in charge, allowed Sherman to force peace in the South by brutal total war. It ended the war sooner. Grant was an employee of Lincoln. He wasn't perfect just as you and I aren't. But he was the individual who kept the Republic from sinking. His (and Sherman's) desire to embrace the wounded South with mercy and forgiveness did not come to fruition after his assassination. A attitude of punishment took over. The South still lags behind the North in almost everything. It's infastructure was totally destroyed and patched together in the midst of poverty and oppression.

I voted for daVinci, and Shakespeare would have been second. Why? Of those ten, they were the only two to create something. DaVinci - beautiful paintings, sculpture etc, and also a great inventor. Shakespeare - wrote great plays that still mean something today. Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Napoleon and Genghis Khan were all empire-builders, and while great men, they don't quite measure up. Nelson - a brilliant sailor, but why is he here? There have been many much better tacticians around - if you want a Brit who made a greater contribution to war, how about Basil Liddell-Hart, who pretty much invented mechanised warfare (at the same time as others, admittedly). Washington created a great nation. Fair enough. Churchill, a great leader, fair enough (so was FDR...). Stalin? GRRRRR!!!! Evil evil man. Worse than Hitler, in my opinion. Hatehatehate.
But none of these men are really as great as some. People like Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Jr., or Mahatma Gandhi (and there are many more). I hesitantly put forward Che Guevara as a great man - he was very socially oriented, a lot more so than any other Communist I've ever heard of. But, the greatest man ever?
Well, first, let me prefix this by saying that I am somewhere towards the atheist tendency - I don't know whether I believe in God. I loathe the Church I was brought up in (Catholic) as a haven of oppression and hatred, in its beliefs rather than its adherents let me add. I dislike the Bible even more - any book which seriously suggests that women who are raped should be stoned to death is just beyond the pale for me (Don't believe me? That's in Deuteronomy 23-24: "If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death-the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.") However, I think Jesus is the greatest man who lived, for ten simple words.

"Do unto others as you would like done unto you."

The way I try to live my life. It's a pretty simple philosophy, but the best ones are.

One thing I personally can't wait to see is the Greatest Person ever on TV. Many nations are doing polls on tele and electing a winner. The First was the British, which I watched and voted for Winston Churchill, and the top 10 was;
10; Oliver Cromwell
9; Lord Nelson
8; John Lennon
7; Elizabeth I
6; Sir Isaac Newton
5; William Shakespeare
4; Charles Darwin
3; Lady Diana Spencer, Princess Of Wales
2; Isambard Kingdom Brunel
1; Sir Winston Churchill

Then came the German vote, won by Konrad Adeneauer, then Iceland, although I'm not sure who won. South Africa was won by Nelson Mandela, Holland was Vincent Van Gogh, and the Chinese and French are polling at the middle east. Italy, The Middle East, and The USA are voting soon, and, as Jeremy Clarkson put it, I can't wait until the Americans vote, and Tom Cruise wins.:D
You know, considering that the Brits voted Diana as the third most important Briton in history, ahead of Darwin, Shakespeare, Newton and Elizabeth I (Yep, Diana did so much more for World history than any of those people :rolleyes: ), you shouldn't get so smug about whoever the Americans choose for their numero uno.
I'm surprised that Goethe didn't top the German poll. I would hazzard a guess about Iceland and say Eric the Red. Or maybe that big fellow who was World's strongest man for a few years back in the 80's and 90's. Or possibly Bjork. Mainly cause that's about it for famous Icelanders ;)

Greatest man in history? You decide, but provide an explanation please! I want whys and wheres etc.

How could you possibly put Stalin on the poll and leave off Gandhi? :rolleyes:

You know, considering that the Brits voted Diana as the third most important Briton in history, ahead of Darwin, Shakespeare, Newton and Elizabeth I (Yep, Diana did so much more for World history than any of those people :rolleyes: ), you shouldn't get so smug about whoever the Americans choose for their numero uno.
I'm surprised that Goethe didn't top the German poll. I would hazzard a guess about Iceland and say Eric the Red. Or maybe that big fellow who was World's strongest man for a few years back in the 80's and 90's. Or possibly Bjork. Mainly cause that's about it for famous Icelanders ;)

You have to understand that simple-minded Chavs are the ones who vote in these polls. TO them, Diana was "Well cool, bro..like innit my main man it's like yeah fab." You get the picture- intelligent people just can't be bothered for the most part.

Something about the most practiced religeon in the world being named after him, having more arguments about him and his beliefs than any of the other mortal men /by far/. BIG influence, always will be.

So how does that differentiate him from the Antichrist Christians have spent the last 2000 years looking for?

Nice to see that three of the potential greatest men in history are from Britain. And one is Nelson, a naval commander. Wtf?

Nice to see that three of the potential greatest men in history are from Britain. And one is Nelson, a naval commander. Wtf?

Who won the greatest and most decisive naval battle in history. SO what if Britain produces great men?

Gandhi

You know, considering that the Brits voted Diana as the third most important Briton in history, ahead of Darwin, Shakespeare, Newton and Elizabeth I (Yep, Diana did so much more for World history than any of those people :rolleyes: ), you shouldn't get so smug about whoever the Americans choose for their numero uno.

Look right below the top ten I put on, and you can see that I put "Diana shouldn't have been in the top 10"

Ronald Reagan.

Who won the greatest and most decisive naval battle in history. SO what if Britain produces great men?
The poll is skewed. Where is any great leader from India? Or China? What about Lincoln, universally acknowledged as the greatest American President? What about Wellington, if you think battles are so important? And so what if Nelson won a great naval battle, so what if he was arguably one of the greatest naval commanders of all that, that doesn't make him the greatest man in history.

Thankfully our anti-Lincoln "professor" is in the minority. I would imagine his motive is a political one, since Lincoln is widely recognized as the greatest Republican president (if not the greatest president, period, which he is to many --if not most-- Americans).

You may want to read "The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War," by Thomas DiLorenzo.

For me?




My father.

Jesus!

Leonardo Da Vinci - a genius hundreds of years ahead of his time.

It depresses me Shakespeare and Washington are level. It really, really does.

The poll is skewed. Where is any great leader from India? Or China? What about Lincoln, universally acknowledged as the greatest American President? What about Wellington, if you think battles are so important? And so what if Nelson won a great naval battle, so what if he was arguably one of the greatest naval commanders of all that, that doesn't make him the greatest man in history.

I can't fit everyone on the poll. Plus, Lincoln is vastly overrated. Plus, I love Wellsesley, he's my favourite land tactician of that era.

There was another incident that was very funny...an aristocratic woman said to Churchill : "WInston, you are drunk!" he replied "Madam, I will not be drunk in the morning but you shall still be ugly." Top notch gag ;)
Churchill loved the bottle?

Heh, I think Wellington and Nelson was a scarier combination. Napoleon is in a defferent class.

Nelson + Napolen = kick ass.

*sneers* so where is george bush on this poll?
as of right now, greatest man in history would have to be the last guy i had sex with. hes lucky, i am lucky, its good all around.

Someone mentioned it earlier, Jesus the Nazarene

Muhammad (PBUH) of course.

Greatest man in history=Jesus Christ

Hannibal Barca.

He was the well learned, he was the greatest commander ever(he even stated himself, that if he had beaten Scipio Africanus he would be the best man. However, seeing how he lost, he considered Alexander to be better.), he was a good leader, a man of strong moral fiber, and a master of words.

And this is only what his arch-enemies, the Romans, say of him! Imagine what we'd hear if his allies described him!

Oh stop that!

Old Satchmo, Louis Armstrong, Bobby Darrin
They this song nice, Lady Ella too
They all sang it, with so much feeling
That Old Blue Eyes, he ain't gonna add nothing new...

The greatest man in history is...

Frank Sinatra!

Lincoln never freed the slaves. He freed the Southern Slaves. Kentucky and west virginia, for instance, kept their slaves. It was a purely economic and political move (to keep france and britain out.)

Cuzzbin. The thing that made the british empire great was sea power. its pretty remarkable. They start building ships to keep all of europe from invading them. and by a stroke of luck, the winds in europe almost always favored the british geographically. Then they take over the chokepoints like gibralter, and the rest is history. ok, this is me just volunteering information as a history buff, now i'm joining the argument. I do agree they were a great empire, but of a different type then america. We're an economic empire, not a land empire. No one can compete with us economically, though china might soon.

matchopolis, at what point is it alright to give up personal rights like habius corpus?

Arammanar, half of this thread is bashing lincoln, obviously people disagree with you about the great president part.

people keep on saying jesus. Jesus didn't do anything except have some good ideas and get tortured to death by romans. Everything people bring up that was done for the world wasn't done by JESUS, it was done by his followers. BIG difference. Of course, if we are judging his worth by what his followers did, i nominate Jesus as the WORST man in history. What about the countless muslims and hertical christains killed in the crusades? what about the inquisitions that swept europe? what about all the religious wars in Europe, what about the oppresion of the catholic church in earlier times? He caused alot of bad things to happen.