NationStates Jolt Archive

Cesare Borgia.

http://pine.zero.ad.jp/~zac81405/img/borgia/borgia.jpg








http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=540095&

Which of these noble historical leaders is worthy of the most praise?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster. ~(0_o)~

Charlemagne of course.

Which of these noble historical leaders is worthy of the most praise?

Your favorites are, eh, meh. I there's not even Napoleon, or Tokugawa up there.

By the way, the best leader alive to day is...(drumroll)...
















Vladmir Putin...by a long shot.

Napoleon is very overrated.

How can you say that? Everyone hates him.

Anyway, he pales in comparison to the other three I've named.

You forgot Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. That´s some serious guys. :p

I find it interesting that you think Franco and Diem are "noble"...

...

And the obvious answer is WILLIAM WALLACE!

You forgot Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. That´s some serious guys. :p

Julius Caesar, now that guy is overrated. He was just an arrogant moon-calf. As for Alexander, he made an "okay" mark with me.

Your favorites are, eh, meh. I there's not even a Napoleon, or Tokugawa up there.

Napoleon is very overrated.

I find it interesting that you think Franco and Diem are "noble"...


I must say, I do too.

My gran.

Emperor Constantine I: Pretty much standard fare late period Roman Emperor. Religious freedom is a plus, using religion as a tool of manipulation a major downer.

Emperor Theodosis the Great: Standard religious theocrat. Ruled in the name of god, enemies of the state were treated as enemies of God. Gotta wub them inquisitions...

Charlemagne: Meh. Built an empire, got crowned by a pope.

King St. Louis IX: One of those crusading Holy Warriors. Using the divine to justify a war to gain power and prestige. Nice guy...

King Philip II of Spain: Holy shit... this guy sat on more European thrones than anyone else I've ever heard of...

Francisco Franco: Fascist leader of Spain. Crushed my favorite Anarcho-syndicalist revolution, and ally to Hitler. Me no likey.

Antonio Salazar: Another Fascist...is there something you wanna tell us?

Ngo Dinh Diem: Brutal US backed despot of South Vietnam. Me no likey.

Dwight Eisenhower: Meh. Criticized military industrial complex that he helped forge.

Ronald Reagan: Swept to power with the support of an amazing 28% of the US population backing him. A real winner. :rolleyes:

Lucius Cornelius Sulla the Dictator (2nd - 1st Century BC).
That's the guy who, in his farewell speech to the Senate, admitted he had a long term boyfriend.

Got to like his style. Unless, of course, you're a homophobe.

Reagan is on the list but Ghandi isn't?

None of the above.

You'd all still be swinging from tree branches if it weren't for Prometheus.

You must have a warped sense of "noble" to include the likes of Franco, Diem, Salazar and Reagan...

...then again you did advocate the gassing of Pedophiles so...

And seriously you're talking about great leaders and you neglect Alexander THE GREAT...or any of these other people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great)

Dude, you seriously need to add Abe Lincoln, FDR, and None of the Above

None of the above.

You'd all still be swinging from tree branches if it weren't for Prometheus.

Ah, but is he a leader? No.

Now if you want to nominate Zeus (which I can't imagine you would), then go ahead.

Which of these noble historical leaders is worthy of the most praise?

I refuse to choose between various ways of debasing myself.

I refuse to choose between various ways of debasing myself.

I'm holding out for the Flying Spaghetti Monster myself. He is the only one worth of praise. ~(0_o)~

You forgot Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. That´s some serious guys. :p

Alex was bi, Theo here is the one who made the "Gay Menace to Society" thread. So I'm guessing he's not listed for a reason. Any bets Da Vinci would be left off a list of great artists?

Dude, you seriously need to add Abe Lincoln, FDR, and None of the Above
Don't buy into the propaganda, Lincoln was a dick of the first class.

Thomas Jefferson? Ghandi? Martin Luther King, Jr.? Queen Elizabeth? Nelson Mandela? Eleanor Roosevelt? Or, if you want to range into the fictional, how about King Arthur? Jesus?

My point is, your list is somewhat one sided... but I guess you probably knew that.

Alex was bi,

I'm sorry, are you using logic here, or getting your facts from a movie?

Theo here is the one who made the "Gay Menace to Society" thread. So I'm guessing he's not listed for a reason.

See above.

Any bets Da Vinci would be left off a list of great artists?

I don't think so.

Don't buy into the propaganda, Lincoln was a dick of the first class.

So was Borgia. I love first-class. Better then all the second classes that run everything these days. Lincoln rocked.

I'm holding out for the Flying Spaghetti Monster myself.

May Theodosis be touched one day soon by His Noodly Appendage.

Which of these noble historical leaders is worthy of the most praise?

What a pisspoor collection. One or two that ain't so bad, but ignoring most of the globe for most of history to pet a couple of meagre despots.

How about Elizabeth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I_of_England

A leader without peer, perhaps.


Although, this guy deserves as much (or more) recognition as most of your offering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greatmilenko.jpg

I'm sorry, are you using logic here, or getting your facts from a movie?

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great%27s_personal_relationships) says:Alexander's greatest emotional attachment was his companion, cavalry commander (hipparchos) and childhood friend, Hephaestion. He studied with Alexander, as did a handful of other children of Macedonian aristocracy, under the tutelage of Aristotle. Hephaestion makes his appearance in history at the point when Alexander reaches Troy. There the two friends made sacrifices at the shrines of the two heroes Achilles and Patroclus; Alexander honouring Achilles, and Hephaestion honouring Patroclus. Aelian in his Varia Historia (12.7) claims that Hephaestion "thus intimated that he was the eromenos ["beloved"] of Alexander, as Patroclus was of Achilles."

No contemporary source states that Alexander and Hephaistion were lovers[6]; historian Paul Cartledge writes that: "Whether Alexander's relationship with the slightly older Hephaestion was ever of the sort that once dared not speak its name is not certain, but it is likely enough that it was. At any rate, Macedonian and Greek mores would have favoured an actively sexual component rather than inhibiting or censoring it."[7] Robin Lane Fox says that "In youth, his great friend was Hephaestion, and surely the sexual element (frequent between young males, or an older and younger male, in Greek city-states) developed already then."[8] Alexander and Hephaestion remained, in Fox's words, "exceptionally deep and close friends" until Hephaestion's untimely death, after which Alexander mourned him greatly and did not eat for days.[9] Alexander held an elaborate funeral for Hephaistion at Babylon, and sent a note to the shrine of Ammon, which had previously acknowledged Alexander as a god, asking them to grant Hephaistion divine honours. The priests declined, but did offer him the status of divine hero. Alexander died soon after the receipt of this letter; Mary Renault suggests that his grief over Hephaistion's death had led him to be careless with his health.[10]

May Theodosis be touched one day soon by His Noodly Appendage.

Indeed.

May he be banished to the Eternally Uncleaned Litter Box of Queen Ma'ab.

Historical, on the list:

Dwight

Historical, not on the list:

Jesus, Arthur Pendragon, Abe Lincoln, George Washington, William Wallace, Nelson Mandela.

Fictional:
Cúchulainn, Jor-El.

Franco was not noble (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/PicassoGuernica.jpg)

Pericles.

His traits are fantastic for culture, research, happiness and development! Especially when considering the odeon unique building

A leader provides his subjects with direction.

Prometheus most certainly WAS a leader. He led you monkeys down from the trees.

Sadly, however, the entire experiment was a failure.

Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Well if you ask me, he could have chosen more competent underlings. Making the world without women? My God. :rolleyes:

Ah, but is he a leader? No.

Now if you want to nominate Zeus (which I can't imagine you would), then go ahead.


A leader provides his subjects with direction.

Prometheus most certainly WAS a leader. He led you monkeys down from the trees.

Sadly, however, the entire experiment was a failure.

Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Historical, on the list:

Dwight

Historical, not on the list:

Jesus, Arthur Pendragon, Abe Lincoln, George Washington, William Wallace, Nelson Mandela.

Fictional:
Cúchulainn, Jor-El.

You're funny... Jesus and Arthur Pendragon are 'historical'?

GeOrGe W. BuSh

We shud totluy just luv our leadr

AMIRITE?


Seriously though, I gotta say Genghis Khan. Cut a massive swath through Europe and Asia using brilliant shock tactics, created an efficient and religious/racially tolerant government and not to mention being born clutching a clot of his own blood.

He was pure badass... A man who ran his empire on sheer balls, gusto and wit alone.

Seriously though, I gotta say Genghis Khan. Cut a massive swath through Europe and Asia through brilliant shock tactics, created an efficient and religious/racially tolerant government and not to mention being born clutching a clot of his own blood.

He was pure badass... A man who ran his empire on sheer balls, gusto and wit alone.

A man who is responsible for 200,000,000 deaths and said: “The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.” Not to mention a huge part of the world is descended from him due to his insatiable appetite for rape and marrying hundreds of women.

That's your favorite leader? This man demands food and gold, and if he doesn't get it, he goes about slaughtering every man, women, child, or animal in the countryside.

Exactly.

Darwin's Laws at work...

The successful spread the seed.

A man who is responsible for 200,000,000 deaths and said: “The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.” Not to mention a huge part of the world is descended from him due to his insatiable appetite for rape and marrying hundreds of women.

That's your favorite leader? This man demands food and gold, and if he doesn't get it, he goes about slaughtering every man, women, child, or animal in the countryside.

You're going to have to cite that figure, or I'm calling bullshit.

I chose Constantine because I'm a hipster doofus and trying to be as ironic as possible. Constantine was to Christianity what Hitler was to Nietzsche.

A man who is responsible for 200,000,000 deaths and said: “The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.” Not to mention a huge part of the world is descended from him due to his insatiable appetite for rape and marrying hundreds of women.

That's your favorite leader? This man demands food and gold, and if he doesn't get it, he goes about slaughtering every man, women, child, or animal in the countryside.

Well 200 mill. is supposed to be the upper limit, and I would like to know where you got that quote from (I've never heard it). As well, Genghis Khan helped combine and further the arts as well as science, and he had a major part in shaping the world. So he's definitely more important than anyone on the poll. In fact, Charlemagne is the only somewhat decent leader on there.

A man who is responsible for 200,000,000 deaths and said: “The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.” Not to mention a huge part of the world is descended from him due to his insatiable appetite for rape and marrying hundreds of women.

That's your favorite leader? This man demands food and gold, and if he doesn't get it, he goes about slaughtering every man, women, child, or animal in the countryside.

Well...greatness doesn't necessarily have to be good..right?

I mean some of the things Genghis Khan did could be considered great in the sense that it was highly influential, had a great political impact etc...I guess that would also make the likes of Hitler and Stalin great too...

Hitler's reign, despite a powerful start, ended in failure and the division of Germany amongst it's conqueror's.

The majority of the Russian populace was starving through the reign of Stalin.

Not signs of good leadership...

But, Genghis ran a just and successful government, albeit a brutal one. Which makes it all the better in my eyes.

In any case, everyone was well fed and equality reigned in the lands he conquered. At the same time he grew powerful and rich. That's good leadership no matter how you cut it.

Blah, what a terrible selection.

Best leader IMHO? Well, he may have never been Prime Minister, he did serve at the federal level. He was a provincial premier. He gave his province the first bill of rights; issued before the UN ever did theirs (passed in 1947; the UN 18 months later in 1948). He brought in the first universal healthcare programme, making it possible for all the people in his province to seek medical attention. He legalised unions for the public sector, among other things.

I know most people are thinking of federal and national leaders, but I am considering the best leader to be one who was only a leader at the provincial level.

Most people aren't Tommy Douglas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas) but if you're from Saskatchewan, you probably know the name and know that he brought that province into the 20th century.

Everyone who is saying "Elizabeth I" should be on my list is severely mistaken. Elizabeth I (the so-called "Virgin Queen", a better title would be the Whore of London) was a tyrannical butcher who should have been defeated by the Spanish Armada. Elizabeth the Whore is responsible for the murder of many innocent Irish and English Catholics.

Hitler's reign, despite a powerful start, ended in failure and the division of Germany amongst it's conqueror's.

The majority of the Russian populace was starving through the reign of Stalin.

Not signs of good leadership...

But, Genghis ran a just and successful government, albeit a brutal one. Which makes it all the better in my eyes.

In any case, everyone was well fed and equality reigned in the lands he conquered. At the same time he grew powerful and rich. That's good leadership no matter how you cut it.

Okay but would you not agree that both Hitler and Stalin were highly influential and had a great political impact?
And that's what I was defining "greatness" as in my other post...

Were they extremely important? Sure.

Were they great? Maybe...

But, I'd say it takes more than great historical influence, to be the "greatest" historical leader. It's not enough to just have a reputation.

Everyone who is saying "Elizabeth I" should be on my list is severely mistaken. Elizabeth I (the so-called "Virgin Queen", a better title would be the Whore of London) was a tyrannical butcher who should have been defeated by the Spanish Armada. Elizabeth the Whore is responsible for the murder of many innocent Irish and English Catholics.

On behalf of Catholics everywhere, I would like to apologize for this member of our flock. We are not all like this.

It depends on the definition of "leader": political, military, etc.

And the definition of "best": Sure, JFK ended the Cuban Missile Crisis, but Mohammed and Jesus seduced billions to their point of view.

Saladin.

He actually posessed the trait of Honor.

Too bad Richard didn't.

On behalf of Catholics everywhere, I would like to apologize for this member of our flock. We are not all like this.

Don't worry. Only Dawkins would make such an over-generalization.*








*Don't get me wrong, I'm an atheist, I'm just not a big fan of fallacious and disrespectful attacks on religious belief.

You're going to have to cite that figure, or I'm calling bullshit.

Sorry it's generally 40m: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/05/22/ING5OCQ5N71.DTL

But, c'mon man, give me a break. I was a Republican!

Genghis Khan helped combine and further the arts as well as science, and he had a major part in shaping the world. So he's definitely more important than anyone on the poll.

Cesare Borgia helped art a hell-of-a-lot more then he did. And he did it without ordering the entire enemie's population raped and/or slaughtered. Actually he banned pillage. He was quite ahead of his time.

Long Live Fred Sanford!!!!!!!!

Genghis ran a just and successful government, albeit a brutal one. Which makes it all the better in my eyes.

If you consider the raping of millions just; if you consider wholesale slaughter of women and children just; if you consider unlawful repossession of neighbors gold just.

In any case, everyone was well fed and equality reigned in the lands he conquered. At the same time he grew powerful and rich. That's good leadership no matter how you cut it.

Well fed? Of course, he killed old men and children so food could be conserved. And I read that out of an Investor's Business Daily article which admired him.

If you consider the raping of millions just; if you consider wholesale slaughter of women and children just; if you consider unlawful repossession of neighbors gold just.


Genghis was a conqueror. It was what he intended to be! He gathered the mongols and said: "The Mongols shall rule the world" or something. Then he takes an horde and creates an empire that extends from korea to hungary, from novgorod to baghdad. And albeit the empire was dismembered by his succesors, they even furthered the conquests. He promised an empire to the mongols, and delivered it.End of story.

Dwight Eisenhower
Ronald Reagan

How could anyone put these two on the top of any list. They aren't even in the top ten of American leaders.

If you want to put an American, Washington would be the only one world wide and that's because he walked away from power.

How about the Great Khan?

Emperor Constantine I: Pretty much standard fare late period Roman Emperor. Religious freedom is a plus, using religion as a tool of manipulation a major downer.

Emperor Theodosis the Great: Standard religious theocrat. Ruled in the name of god, enemies of the state were treated as enemies of God. Gotta wub them inquisitions...

Charlemagne: Meh. Built an empire, got crowned by a pope.

King St. Louis IX: One of those crusading Holy Warriors. Using the divine to justify a war to gain power and prestige. Nice guy...

King Philip II of Spain: Holy shit... this guy sat on more European thrones than anyone else I've ever heard of...

Francisco Franco: Fascist leader of Spain. Crushed my favorite Anarcho-syndicalist revolution, and ally to Hitler. Me no likey.

Antonio Salazar: Another Fascist...is there something you wanna tell us?

Ngo Dinh Diem: Brutal US backed despot of South Vietnam. Me no likey.

Dwight Eisenhower: Meh. Criticized military industrial complex that he helped forge.

Ronald Reagan: Swept to power with the support of an amazing 28% of the US population backing him. A real winner. :rolleyes:

Technically Charles V sat on more thrones. He gave half of them to Philip II.

On behalf of Catholics everywhere, I would like to apologize for this member of our flock. We are not all like this.


You are a disgrace. You defend the harlot Queen who drenched her hands in the blood of thousands and thousands of innocent Catholics. Elizabeth I was a savage tyrant and should have been overthrown.

You are a disgrace. You defend the harlot Queen who drenched her hands in the blood of thousands and thousands of innocent Catholics. Elizabeth I was a savage tyrant and should have been overthrown.

Actually he seems to be separating her from the them... Although I do appreciate the fact that you have to make an apology to us Catholics..

Nonetheless, from a purely political standpoint, she did do great things for England. She not only defeated the Spanish Armada, but she greatly stabilized the nation, allowing it to grow into a colonial empire and such.

You are a disgrace. You defend the harlot Queen who drenched her hands in the blood of thousands and thousands of innocent Catholics. Elizabeth I was a savage tyrant and should have been overthrown.
I wasn't defending the queen, I was attacking you. In my opinion, she was a tyrant, and if she wasn't, she gave in to the mob mindset which is just as bad. I was apologizing for your defense of people such as Franco, and quoted the thing about the queen because that was when I realized you're Catholic.

You are a disgrace. You defend the harlot Queen who drenched her hands in the blood of thousands and thousands of innocent Catholics. Elizabeth I was a savage tyrant and should have been overthrown.

source?

You're funny... Jesus and Arthur Pendragon are 'historical'?

Interesting that you point that out. They were the two fictional characters I nominated on the previous page. :D

You're funny... Jesus and Arthur Pendragon are 'historical'?

Aren't they?

I second Genghis Khan. BURN AND PILLAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *burns down thread*

I second Genghis Khan. BURN AND PILLAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *burns down thread*

Only a Chicken thief could go out like this. Original recipe, or extra crispy? ;)

Chingis Khan barely pulled off any ruling. He died early on. Most of the expansion was done under his children.

Greatest leader in terms of what?

I nominate Augustus Caesar, he found Rome a city of bricks and left it one of marble.

Reagan for me but come on the choices are so amazingly off with some of the greatest historical figures and then a modern US President who, don't get me wrong is great in his own right but we're talking about history books here.

Gah! 20% for Reagan?
That's the joke option, right?
Along with the others?

Worst poll evar.

Flavius Claudius Julianus (mis-named Julian the Apostate).

If he had not died so early, Christianity would have probably never taken hold as a part of state apparati, ergo Islam would have not been fabricated, ergo: the world would have been a far better place.

Blah, what a terrible selection.

Best leader IMHO? Well, he may have never been Prime Minister, he did serve at the federal level. He was a provincial premier. He gave his province the first bill of rights; issued before the UN ever did theirs (passed in 1947; the UN 18 months later in 1948). He brought in the first universal healthcare programme, making it possible for all the people in his province to seek medical attention. He legalised unions for the public sector, among other things.

I know most people are thinking of federal and national leaders, but I am considering the best leader to be one who was only a leader at the provincial level.

Most people aren't Tommy Douglas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas) but if you're from Saskatchewan, you probably know the name and know that he brought that province into the 20th century.
Tommy Douglas, fuck yeah!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/1944_NormandyLST.jpg/300px-1944_NormandyLST.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Normandy)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/020903-o-9999b-098.jpg/180px-020903-o-9999b-098.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Airmen)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Wendy_Welder_Richmond_Shipyards.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_the_riveter)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/26/Bonhoeffer.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/aa/Wilhelmcanaris.jpg/150px-Wilhelmcanaris.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Martin_Luther_King_Jr_NYWTS.jpg/200px-Martin_Luther_King_Jr_NYWTS.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Gandhi_studio_1931.jpg/200px-Gandhi_studio_1931.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Feminist_Suffrage_Parade_in_New_York_City%2C_1912.jpeg/350px-Feminist_Suffrage_Parade_in_New_York_City%2C_1912.jpeg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_women%27s_suffrage_in_the_United_States)

There are kings, queens, presidents, and various "greats." Then there are leaders...

Most people aren't Tommy Douglas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas) but if you're from Saskatchewan, you probably know the name and know that he brought that province into the 20th century.

Any Canadian should know who Tommy Douglas was. Should know.

The Hispanic Republic of Miami Jai-Alai with a Cuban Majority Proudly votes its support for President Ronald Reagan.

Mostly on behalf of our Cuban, Nicaraguan, Venezuelan, Bolivian, El Salvadorian and Colombian Hispanic Miami Jai-Alai Citizens.

President Lincoln Diaz-Balart
Vice President Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Foreign Affairs Minister Elian Gonzalez.

No Russians? Ivan IV ruled over an Empire which, I am given to understand, STILL holds the world record for fastest growth (50 miles a day!). Sure, he went a little crazy in his later years, but who doesnt?
Peter the Great took Muscovy from 14th century backwater to (arguably) the strongest nation in the world.
Catherine, Ivan III, Alexander Nevsky, theres plenty of Ruskies to pick from.

'Course Russia tends to get forgotten even more than Poland for some reason.

Norman Borlaug. His work has saved a billion people from death by starvation, how can anyone possibly match that?

We vote for Vladimir Lenin, George Washington, Hitler(still a leader, although nasty). Atilla the Hun.

No Chinese or Russian leaders? No Gandhi? Ronald Reagan being the only mentioned American President (no Washington, no TR, but Reagen)? Is this thread about great leaders or just Europeans talking to each other about how great they are?

And Jesus as fictional? Rather or not you believe he's the son of God or his ability to perform miracles, there's little historical doubt that Jesus existed and was obviously one of the strongest leaders in history. Actually if you consider him as human then it will make him an even greater leader in accomplishing what he did.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster. ~(0_o)~

Ramen! :D

The Flying Spaghetti Monster. ~(0_o)~

I'm holding out for the Flying Spaghetti Monster myself. He is the only one worth of praise. ~(0_o)~

Ramen! :D

RAmen indeed :)

tyrants well spun, one and all.

=^^=
.../\...

If you consider the raping of millions just; if you consider wholesale slaughter of women and children just; if you consider unlawful repossession of neighbors gold just.

My ideals are not so lofty and quixotic to believe in such a thing as unlawful repossession.

If you can take a thing, it's yours; if you haven't the capabilities to keep something in your possession, it is not yours.

Also, far too many tears are shed for all those poor dead women, children and innocents. It's a brutal world out there...

Tommy Douglas, fuck yeah!

:)

Any Canadian should know who Tommy Douglas was. Should know.

Should. Unfortunately he's overlooked when we study history, which is ashame.

If we discuss Russian monarchs, I propose Alexander II. Despite vacillating somewhat, he was nonetheless a rather more appealing, liberal and prudent autocrat then either his father, or his son and grandson.

That said, I still vote for Pericles.

Julius Caesar, now that guy is overrated. He was just an arrogant moon-calf. As for Alexander, he made an "okay" mark with me.

Yeah, but you must agree that he was a very competent military commander.

You are a disgrace. You defend the harlot Queen who drenched her hands in the blood of thousands and thousands of innocent Catholics. Elizabeth I was a savage tyrant and should have been overthrown.

What about the Inquisition, the Crusades and the oppression against all rational and free-thinking persons? Everyone was savage tyrants at that time. You Catholics were no better than anyone else. Actually, you were worst.

A man who is responsible for 200,000,000 deaths and said: “The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.” Not to mention a huge part of the world is descended from him due to his insatiable appetite for rape and marrying hundreds of women.

That's your favorite leader? This man demands food and gold, and if he doesn't get it, he goes about slaughtering every man, women, child, or animal in the countryside.

I think you buy into the hype. For every scholar that argues Khan as a brutal dictator, there are those that argue he was just brilliant at military tactics, and ruthlessly efficient at government. For every claim of him as a barbarian warlord bent on rapine and destruction, there are equal claims that his wars were just, and that he brought calm and civilisation. For every discussion of bloody destruction, there is the argument that the Khan tended to offer conditional surrenders first.

In context, a meritocratic society that valued women and religious freedoms, and that fostered medicine and education, was quite an anomoly.

Everyone who is saying "Elizabeth I" should be on my list is severely mistaken. Elizabeth I (the so-called "Virgin Queen", a better title would be the Whore of London) was a tyrannical butcher who should have been defeated by the Spanish Armada. Elizabeth the Whore is responsible for the murder of many innocent Irish and English Catholics.

She "should have been defeated by the Spanish Armada"? Why? If she 'should' have been, she would have been, surely?

Where does your 'whore of London' idea come from? Have you done even basic research?

I wonder why her sexual escepades matter to you... your list, coupled with your attack on Elizabeth as a 'whore' smacks of gynophobia.

You are a disgrace. You defend the harlot Queen who drenched her hands in the blood of thousands and thousands of innocent Catholics. Elizabeth I was a savage tyrant and should have been overthrown.

Many attempts to overthrow her were made. She resisted them.

I hardly think overturning Mass as mandatory, equates to claiming she "drenched her hands in the blood of thousands and thousands of innocent Catholics".

Aren't they?

Probably not... certainly not in anything like the form we receive today. They might have both been based on real people... but the operative term is 'might'... and if they were based on real people, we know almost nothing about the inspirational characters.

...there's little historical doubt that Jesus existed...

Rubbish.

Important criteria is evaluating a source: Is it contemporary? Is it independent? Is the source 'primary'? Is it 'objective'?

There are no contemporary historical sources regarding Jesus.

The earliest sources are 30 years after he is supposed to have died, and were written by members of the nascent Christian movement. They are not independent.

The earliest source that could be described as 'independent' is the Josephus text... which appears to have been altered anyway, and which is written by an author who wasn't even born during Jesus' alleged earthly ministry. Josephus is certainly not a primary source.

The first truly objective attempts to discuss Jesus... might not have happened till the last century.

There is just no good reason to believe in a 'historical' Jesus.

Hmmm.... well, of the options (not that I like many of them, but oh well) I'd have to choose Charlemagne, as a great man who respected the importance of education even though he himself could not read, forged central Europe into a strong empire and center of learning and recaptured some of the glories of the Roman Empire in its heyday.

Personally, though, my vote would be for either Alexander the Great (who conquered much of the known world, from Macedon to India, in just 13 years or so, and who brought the enlightened Hellenic culture with him. A close second would be Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, first Chancellor of West Germany, who managed to rescue the ravaged nation from almost certain destruction, re-introduced true democracy to Germany and helped institute, along with Charles de Gaulle, the international trade agreements that would one day manifest themselves as the European Union.

No Chinese or Russian leaders? No Gandhi? Ronald Reagan being the only mentioned American President (no Washington, no TR, but Reagen)? Is this thread about great leaders or just Europeans talking to each other about how great they are?

There are two American presidents mentioned...

Whe're talking about history here, the US hasn't been around that long (I assume you didn't mean the continent). But I agree with you and everyone else who responded that the choices aren't that ideal. Than again it's just the opnion of the OP and he seems to lean to authorian catholic men, whose brutal aspects mostly have been overshadowed by more extreme versions of themselves..

My ideals are not so lofty and quixotic to believe in such a thing as unlawful repossession.

If you can take a thing, it's yours; if you haven't the capabilities to keep something in your possession, it is not yours.

Also, far too many tears are shed for all those poor dead women, children and innocents. It's a brutal world out there...

So if I break into your house and shoot you, then take everything you have and burn-down your house, I'm "hip"?

I think you buy into the hype. For every scholar that argues Khan as a brutal dictator, there are those that argue he was just brilliant at military tactics, and ruthlessly efficient at government. For every claim of him as a barbarian warlord bent on rapine and destruction, there are equal claims that his wars were just, and that he brought calm and civilisation. For every discussion of bloody destruction, there is the argument that the Khan tended to offer conditional surrenders first.

In context, a meritocratic society that valued women and religious freedoms, and that fostered medicine and education, was quite an anomoly.

I don't buy into any hype. I used to admire Genghis Khan. Then after reading numerous articles and books that were in favor of him, and seeing what he did, I cried-out: "jerk".
I don't care what his society accomplished. You can't just demand a king give-over all his gold and women, and if he doesn't, go in and mercilessly kill millions.

Rubbish.

Important criteria is evaluating a source: Is it contemporary? Is it independent? Is the source 'primary'? Is it 'objective'?

There are no contemporary historical sources regarding Jesus.

The earliest sources are 30 years after he is supposed to have died, and were written by members of the nascent Christian movement. They are not independent.

The earliest source that could be described as 'independent' is the Josephus text... which appears to have been altered anyway, and which is written by an author who wasn't even born during Jesus' alleged earthly ministry. Josephus is certainly not a primary source.

The first truly objective attempts to discuss Jesus... might not have happened till the last century.

There is just no good reason to believe in a 'historical' Jesus.

Any relevant documents that might have corroborated his existence would have been stored in the the Library of Alexandria, and that went up in flames in the 600s AD. No evidence of his existence still remains beyond accounts written almost a century later.

Of the above: Franco. He crushed the Communists in the most decisive manner possible.

Of the above: Franco. He crushed the Communists in the most decisive manner possible.

Oh, for Christ's sake. Hitler executed many-a-Communists, so I guess he's noble too.

Oh, for Christ's sake. Hitler executed many-a-Communists, so I guess he's noble too.

Well, Hitler was on the ball when it came to that issue... but others he had problems.

I don't buy into any hype. I used to admire Genghis Khan. Then after reading numerous articles and books that were in favor of him, and seeing what he did, I cried-out: "jerk".
I don't care what his society accomplished. You can't just demand a king give-over all his gold and women, and if he doesn't, go in and mercilessly kill millions.

Based on what you claim you read that was supposed to be pro-Genghis, I doubt it.

There are two sets of historical evidence of Genghis Khan... one tradition that maintains him as a barbarian who killed and raped mercilessly... largely written by peoples he conquered... and a tradition that paints him as a civilising influence who brought peace and cooperation... largely written by other 'outside' observers.

It has always been the tradition of the victors to rewrite history to favour themselves, adn the victim to reimagine their defeats as far more barbarous thatn they might have been... but the 'pro-Genghis' camp wasn't the Mongol horde writing celebratory histories - it was external forces. So - we are faced with a fairly objective tradition, and a subjective (victim) tradition. The sources should be analysed with that in mind.

I'm not quite sure what your sources are, to be honest... if any. If you've ever seen the kinds of declarations Genghis had delivered to cities he was about to approach, 'give us your gold and women' isn't really a typical claim. That's not to say no looting took place...

Genghis was no angel. But he certainly wasn't the devil some historians have painted him to be, either.

Any relevant documents that might have corroborated his existence would have been stored in the the Library of Alexandria, and that went up in flames in the 600s AD. No evidence of his existence still remains beyond accounts written almost a century later.

What a load of wank.

Other documents exist that date earlier that 600AD, obviously. I'm not going to buy the idea that various evidences exist of various things... except for the life of one Jew who supposedly raised the dead. It's a bit of a stretch - I can't really believe you even suggested it with a straight face.

If actual evidence had existed at the time of Jospehus or Tacitus, they would have referenced it. They fail to mention anything except for hearsay... and that is basically about Christians, not about 'Christ' himself. (And, of course, it looks like the stuff about 'Christ' in Jospehus was actually added much later.

Interesting that "Any relevant documents that might have corroborated his existence" would have been universally destroyed... but Josephus (for example) survives...?

Well, Hitler was on the ball when it came to that issue... but others he had problems.

Seriously? You support mass execution of people who favour a system where the factors of production are allocated by the state?

Based on what you claim you read that was supposed to be pro-Genghis, I doubt it. One article was in U.S. News, and the other was in the Investor's Business Daily. Trust me: they were both pro-Khan. There are two sets of historical evidence of Genghis Khan... one tradition that maintains him as a barbarian who killed and raped mercilessly... largely written by peoples he conquered... and a tradition that paints him as a civilising influence who brought peace and cooperation... largely written by other 'outside' observers. Name the outside observers. I know one "interviewed" him about what gave him the greatest pleasure. I believe he then responded with the quote that I placed at the beginning of a thread that concerned Khan, which is still-up. Next thing you'll be telling me is that the Vikings were a "civilizing influence".It has always been the tradition of the victors to rewrite history to favour themselves, and the victim to reimagine their defeats as far more barbarous that they might have been... but the 'pro-Genghis' camp wasn't the Mongol horde writing celebratory histories - it was external forces. Name them. So - we are faced with a fairly objective tradition, and a subjective (victim) tradition. The sources should be analyzed with that in mind. It should also be analyzed that Khan said a lot against himself. What he considered magnificent, I consider horrendous. He was always telling people how terrible he was. I'm not quite sure what your sources are, to be honest... if any. I've stated them above. If you've ever seen the kinds of declarations Genghis had delivered to cities he was about to approach, 'give us your gold and women' isn't really a typical claim. That's not to say no looting took place... Indeed. He did demand gold and land. If he didn't get it, he took-out his frustrations on women and children. Genghis was no angel. But he certainly wasn't the devil some historians have painted him to be, either. Killer of 40 million and proud of it. I guess that's not too bad....

Next thing you'll be telling me is that the Vikings were a "civilizing influence"

Actually they were. They forced the European kingdoms to organize to defend against them. And they were really, really cool. *Runs around with axe and horned helmet*

One article was in U.S. News, and the other was in the Investor's Business Daily. Trust me: they were both pro-Khan. Name the outside observers. I know one "interviewed" him about what gave him the greatest pleasure. I believe he then responded with the quote that I placed at the beginning of a thread that concerned Khan, which is still-up. Next thing you'll be telling me is that the Vikings were a "civilizing influence". Name them. It should also be analyzed that Khan said a lot against himself. What he considered magnificent, I consider horrendous. He was always telling people how terrible he was. I've stated them above. Indeed. He did demand gold and land. If he didn't get it, he took-out his frustrations on women and children. Killer of 40 million and proud of it. I guess that's not too bad....

Do you just sit around making this shit up?

Do you just sit around making this shit up?

May I inquire as to which part of my post was offensive enough for you to categorize it as defecation?

Actually they were. They forced the European kingdoms to organize to defend against them. And they were really, really cool. *Runs around with axe and horned helmet*

You know...all those horned helmets were only used for ceremony. None were actually used in battle.

You know...all those horned helmets were only used for ceremony. None were actually used in battle.

Of course I know. I live in Sweden. It´s just Americans and Japanese that believe that we really ran around in horned or winged helmets. But, we make a fortune out of selling plastic helmets with horns to them. :D

May I inquire as to which part of my post was offensive enough for you to categorize it as defecation?

It's not that it's all that offenseive... its just tripe.

And unsubstantiated tripe at that.

Err... all of those are crap for different reasons.

And picking the best leader in all of history? Ermm...

Edward the Confessor. Because he's a perfectly acceptable king that everyone forgets about, which is a bit of a shame.

It's not that it's all that offenseive... its just tripe.

And unsubstantiated tripe at that.

Pray tell, what part is unsubstantiated? I suppose truth can be tripe.

Of couse I know. I live in Sweden. It´s just Americans and Japanese that believe that we really ran around in horned or winged helmets. But, we make a fortune out of selling plastic helmets with horns to them. :D

Not I, and I'm an American. Of course I have Norwegian and Danish blood in me. :p

Pray tell, what part is unsubstantiated? I suppose truth can be tripe.

I've yet to see any reason any of your claims are 'truth'.

Obviously, I don't want to doubt your whole two articles (which you haven't even actually presented), even where it contrasts against mere years of research.

Of the above: Franco. He crushed the Communists in the most decisive manner possible.


Indeed. Francisco Franco was a great leader and a great man whose name has been dragged through the mud by so many revisionist "historians".

Franco saved Spain from becoming a mini-USSR. The communists and anarchists (called themselves "Republicans") were monsters who went around murdering and raping the Spanish people. Franco had enough of their barbarism and thankfully defeated them in the Spanish Civil War.

As the leader of Spain, Franco was a shining success. He was a staunch anti-communist and all the while never fell under the control of Hitler (Hitler hated Franco). He brought economic growth to Spain, but more importantly, justice and safety.

Vive Franco!

Indeed. Francisco Franco was a great leader and a great man whose name has been dragged through the mud by so many revisionist "historians".

Franco saved Spain from becoming a mini-USSR. The communists and anarchists (called themselves "Republicans") were monsters who went around murdering and raping the Spanish people. Franco had enough of their barbarism and thankfully defeated them in the Spanish Civil War.

As the leader of Spain, Franco was a shining success. He was a staunch anti-communist and all the while never fell under the control of Hitler (Hitler hated Franco). He brought economic growth to Spain, but more importantly, justice and safety.

Vive Franco!

The Spanish Civil war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_civil_war) was the testing grounds for the Blitz strategy the Nazis planned to use. Mussolini supplied Franco as well with troops and arsenal. The "defeat" of the communists was because of direct Nazi intervention and the choice of Stalin to not be bothered with Spanish politics.

Mexico, in addition to the USSR supported the Republicanos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_civil_war#The_Republicans). There were plenty of international supporters for both sides. The Republicans were moderates, though they did have radicals on their sides. They were also ready to permit the Basque country along with Catalina and Asturias autonomy. (Let me guess, you don't like them because they're secular?)

As for atrocities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_civil_war#Atrocities_during_the_war), both sides are quite guilty in that respect. Franco is no saint.

From Wiki (since it gives a nice summary):

The atrocities of the Nationalist side were common and were frequently ordered by authorities in order to eradicate any trace of leftism in Spain and sometimes committed by radical groups during the first weeks of the war. This included the aerial bombing of cities in the Republican territory, carried out mainly by the Luftwaffe volunteers of the Condor Legion and the Italian air force volunteers of the Corpo Truppe Volontarie (Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Guernica, and other cities), the execution of school teachers (because the efforts of the Republic to promote laicism and to displace the Church from the education system, and the closing of religious schools, were considered by the Nationalist side as an attack on the Church), the execution of individuals because of accusations of anti-clericalism, the massive killings of civilians in the cities they captured, the execution of unwanted individuals (including non-combatants such as trade-unionists and known Republican sympathisers), etc[24].

Atrocities on the Republican side were committed by government agencies, ruling parties and groups of radical leftists (mainly anarchists) against alleged rebel supporters, including the nobility, former landowners, rich farmers, industrialists, non-socialist workers and the Church. Atrocities by the Republicans have been termed Spain's red terror by those on the Nationalist side. Republican attacks on the Catholic Church, associated strongly with support for the old monarchist and hierarchical establishment, were particularly controversial.

Nearly 7,000 clerics were killed and churches, convents and monasteries were attacked (see Martyrs of the Spanish Civil War). 13 bishops, 4184 diocesan priests, 2365 male religious (among them 114 Jesuits) and 283 nuns were killed, and there are unverified accounts of Catholic faithful being forced to swallow rosary beads, thrown down mine shafts and priests being forced to dig their own graves before being buried alive. Other repressive actions in the Republican side were committed by specific factions such as the Stalinist NKVD (the Soviet secret police). Note that these crimes committed by the NKVD were carried out not only against the Nationalists but also against all those who did not share their ideology, even if they were fighting on the Republican side. In addition, many Republican leaders, such as Lluís Companys, president of the Generalitat de Catalunya, the autonomous government of Catalonia, that remained loyal to the Republic, carried out numerous actions to mediate in cases of deliberate executions of the clergy

(so you don't have to click the link to find the info, but it's there for those who want it)

Many attempts to overthrow her were made. She resisted them.

I hardly think overturning Mass as mandatory, equates to claiming she "drenched her hands in the blood of thousands and thousands of innocent Catholics".

Lets see. She unleased the English forces upon the helpless Irish, allowing them to rape and pillage at whim. She encouraged wealthy English Protestants to colonize in Ireland and steal Catholic land and forcibly convert the locals. Thousands of Irish perished during her reign. She declared Catholicism illegal and being a priest in England was punishable by death. People were forced to attend Anglican services every Sunday, and many Catholic buildings were literally blown up. Her forces ravaged Scotland as well and killed Catholics there. She had the throat slit of every sailor from the Armada who swam to shore.

She was an anti-Catholic harlot* to the highest degree.

* she had likely affairs with Sir Walter Raleigh, Robert Devereux, Christopher Hatton, and Robert Dudley, along with others. She was the most expensive whore in London.

Saparmurat Niyazov - all are inferior to his eccentricities of politics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saparmurat_Niyazov

Lets see. She unleased the English forces upon the helpless Irish, allowing them to rape and pillage at whim. She encouraged wealthy English Protestants to colonize in Ireland and steal Catholic land and forcibly convert the locals. Thousands of Irish perished during her reign. She declared Catholicism illegal and being a priest in England was punishable by death. People were forced to attend Anglican services every Sunday, and many Catholic buildings were literally blown up. Her forces ravaged Scotland as well and killed Catholics there. She had the throat slit of every sailor from the Armada who swam to shore.

She was an anti-Catholic harlot* to the highest degree.

* she had likely affairs with Sir Walter Raleigh, Robert Devereux, Christopher Hatton, and Robert Dudley, along with others. She was the most expensive whore in London.

It was Henry VIII who led the assault on Ireland and the Catholics there, taking it because of an order/request from the Vatican. Elizabeth never declared Catholicism illegal, she re-established Protestantism by overturning acts passed by Mary I. Though Elizabeth did retain England's control over the nation of Ireland and didn't pass completely favourable laws. This is still a far cry from your baseless claims.

The Act of Uniformity of 1559 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Uniformity_1559) sought to establish some sort of stable environment. It was far more cautious than the initial Bill of Reformation, as it excluded many harsh punishments against the Catholics and permitted the Catholics to practice their faith. It served to unify the Catholic and Protestant wings of Anglicanism.

As for her sexual exploits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I#Virginity), she was rumoured to have consorted with with Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester and Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex. Not much is known because despite being a monarch with the norm as a King to have a mistress or concubine, it would have been unheard of for a Queen to retain such a person. Hence most documentation is based on conjecture because of the image she attempted to project. She needed to remain a "virgin" Queen to retain her power over England.

Try researching first and citing your sources. If you don't, you'll look like a damn fool and NSG will treat you as such.

Lets see. She unleased the English forces upon the helpless Irish, allowing them to rape and pillage at whim. She encouraged wealthy English Protestants to colonize in Ireland and steal Catholic land and forcibly convert the locals. Thousands of Irish perished during her reign. She declared Catholicism illegal and being a priest in England was punishable by death. People were forced to attend Anglican services every Sunday, and many Catholic buildings were literally blown up. Her forces ravaged Scotland as well and killed Catholics there. She had the throat slit of every sailor from the Armada who swam to shore.

She was an anti-Catholic harlot* to the highest degree.

* she had likely affairs with Sir Walter Raleigh, Robert Devereux, Christopher Hatton, and Robert Dudley, along with others. She was the most expensive whore in London.

Your beloved catholic church was not so nice either. The punishment for protestantism was death in most catholic countries. The catholic church organized the crusades. What i remember, the crusaders slaughtered the whole population of Jerusalem ehen they took the city. You have as much blood on your hands as everyone else. Probably more.

The Inquisition was a very progressive court for its time period. Over 90% of its "punishments" were community service or a pilgrimage. It was forbidden to use torture for much of its existance, and when it was allowed to torture it was still heavily restricted (only 1 torture session per victim, no permenant damage/no removing any body part). There were cases of people blaspheming on purpose in order to be tried before the Inquisition instead of the secular courts, as the secular courts were much harsher. The victim rate of the Inquisition is much lower than most people believe. The "most ruthless" of the various Inquisitions, that of Spain, executed less people than the state of Texas.

The crusades were a very just and reasonable war. Moslem armies had attacked France, conquered Spain, wiped out Christian communities in Africa, attacked Greece, launched boat attacks on Italy, etc. all before the crusades. Europe was being squashed by Islam and so a Christian counter-attack was VITAL to the survival of the continent. If it were not for the heroic men who went on the holy crusade, Europe would be known as Eurabia today.

Are you crazy?!!? Going against the popular opinion that Christians are evil? What is the matter with you?!?!?

What about the Inquisition, the Crusades and the oppression against all rational and free-thinking persons? Everyone was savage tyrants at that time. You Catholics were no better than anyone else. Actually, you were worst.

The Inquisition was a very progressive court for its time period. Over 90% of its "punishments" were community service or a pilgrimage. It was forbidden to use torture for much of its existance, and when it was allowed to torture it was still heavily restricted (only 1 torture session per victim, no permenant damage/no removing any body part). There were cases of people blaspheming on purpose in order to be tried before the Inquisition instead of the secular courts, as the secular courts were much harsher. The victim rate of the Inquisition is much lower than most people believe. The "most ruthless" of the various Inquisitions, that of Spain, executed less people than the state of Texas.

The crusades were a very just and reasonable war. Moslem armies had attacked France, conquered Spain, wiped out Christian communities in Africa, attacked Greece, launched boat attacks on Italy, etc. all before the crusades. Europe was being squashed by Islam and so a Christian counter-attack was VITAL to the survival of the continent. If it were not for the heroic men who went on the holy crusade, Europe would be known as Eurabia today.

Eleftherios Venizelos. duh.

It was Henry VIII who led the assault on Ireland, taking it because of an order/request from the Vatican. Elizabeth never declared Catholicism illegal, she re-established Protestantism by overturning acts passed by Mary I.

The Act of Uniformity of 1559 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Uniformity_1559) sought to establish some sort of stable environment. It was far more cautious than the initial Bill of Reformation, as it excluded many harsh punishments against the Catholics and permitted the Catholics to practice their faith. It served to unify the Catholic and Protestant wings of Anglicanism.

Try researching first and citing your sources. If you don't, you'll look like a damn fool and NSG will treat you as such.

Elizabeth continued the colonization process in Ireland, taking it to a far greater degree than Henry VIII even dreamed. And Catholics in England itself were persecuted. I suggest YOU doing your research. Elizabeth's early "moderation" did not last long.

The Inquisition was a very progressive court for its time period. Over 90% of its "punishments" were community service or a pilgrimage. It was forbidden to use torture for much of its existance, and when it was allowed to torture it was still heavily restricted (only 1 torture session per victim, no permenant damage/no removing any body part). There were cases of people blaspheming on purpose in order to be tried before the Inquisition instead of the secular courts, as the secular courts were much harsher. The victim rate of the Inquisition is much lower than most people believe. The "most ruthless" of the various Inquisitions, that of Spain, executed less people than the state of Texas.

The crusades were a very just and reasonable war. Moslem armies had attacked France, conquered Spain, wiped out Christian communities in Africa, attacked Greece, launched boat attacks on Italy, etc. all before the crusades. Europe was being squashed by Islam and so a Christian counter-attack was VITAL to the survival of the continent. If it were not for the heroic men who went on the holy crusade, Europe would be known as Eurabia today.

And it would probably be better. The crusades were organized to solve Europes inner problems. The "muslim threat against Europe" was a hoax to get public support. And counterattacking by slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians does seem a little radical. Calling the crusaders "heroic" is like calling the Nazis heroic. They were no better. At that time, the Muslim nations were far more advanced than the european ones. Europe was a barbaric place. It would have been better if the muslims had won.

Elizabeth continued the colonization process in Ireland, taking it to a far greater degree than Henry VIII even dreamed. And Catholics in England itself were persecuted. I suggest YOU doing your research. Elizabeth's early "moderation" did not last long.

Mary I aided in the colonisation, as did James I and every damn monarch after that. They all equally had the chance to renounce that godless leprechaun-infested gold sink but they didn't.

As for persecuted, I cited Act of Uniformity 1559, and you give me utter conjecture.

And you want to talk brutal colonisation of Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland)? Does the name Oliver Cromwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell) mean anything to you? It should since he was the one who did far more damage to Ireland than Elizabeth did; she had her hands full with the Spanish due to her sister's union with King Philip II of Spain.

The Cromwellian conquest of Ireland (1649-53) refers to the re-conquest of Ireland by the forces English Parliament, led by Oliver Cromwell during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. Cromwell landed in Ireland with his New Model Army on behalf of the English Parliament in 1649. Since the Irish Rebellion of 1641, Ireland had been mainly under the control of the Irish Confederate Catholics, who in 1649, signed an alliance with the English Royalist party, which had been defeated in the English Civil War. Cromwell's forces defeated the Confederate and Royalist coalition in Ireland and occupied the country - bringing to an end the Irish Confederate Wars. He passed a very harsh series of Penal laws against Roman Catholics and confiscated almost all of their land. The Parliamentarian reconquest of Ireland was extremely brutal, and it has been alleged that many of the army's actions during the reconquest would today be called war crimes or even genocide. Cromwell is still a hated figure in Ireland. It has recently been argued by one historian that many of the actions taken by Cromwell were within the then-accepted rules of war, or were exaggerated or distorted by later propagandists. These claims are not accepted by most historians. The Parliamentarian campaign, which Cromwell largely headed, is estimated to have resulted in the death or exile of about 15-20% of the Irish population.

A brief summary of Cromwell's actions, during a time in which England was a republic, with its monarchs dethroned.

He was also far less tolerant of religions than Elizabeth I ever was. Here's a link to an overview (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell#Overview).

And I realise it's a challenge but you could use links to prove your point.

Does the irony burn? Honestly, you're telling me I should research my points and I'm providing links yet you substantiate none of your tripe and expect us to swallow it?

And the ones before it, Henry II was doing it in the 12th century.

How about we say once England got is shit together and the Irish got a little too cozy with not having their asses invaded, they've been England's bitch ever since? ;)

Mary I aided in the colonisation, as did James I and every damn monarch after that. They all equally had the chance to renounce that godless leprechaun-infested gold sink but they didn't.


And the ones before it, Henry II was doing it in the 12th century.

:)



Should. Unfortunately he's overlooked when we study history, which is ashame.

Ooh, ooh, I know!
I found out when I was looking at the "Greatest..." category on Wikipedia. In Canada, the CBC ran a show about the greatest Canadian, and chose the creator of Canada's Medicare. In the US, the Discovery Channel ran a similar program and it's Greatest American was...Ronald Reagan, beating Abraham Lincoln. I might just move. (Of course, I'm American, so what is more likely is I'll get my government to invade Canada, make it a US territory, and then move.)

From what's been given I gotta go with Alexander.

But where are us wimmins?
I wanna see Boudicca up here.

So if I break into your house and shoot you, then take everything you have and burn-down your house, I'm "hip"?

You're not "hip..."

You just have my property. It's simple physics...

It would have been better if the muslims had won.

Indeed, it would have been far better to be 2nd class citizens in some islamic dictatorship.:rolleyes:

Indeed, it would have been far better to be 2nd class citizens in some islamic dictatorship.:rolleyes:

Oh, please. In many ways Al Andalus was a bastion of progress and reason in the world at its time. It far outclassed the Eastern Muslim territories and Europe in terms of tolerance and inter-faith/culture/race/etc. discourse. Unfortunately both the rest of the Muslim empire and Europe ended up bringing it down but, yea, if Andalus had been able to maintain its peak in the face of the various aggressors that were bringing it down, we probably would live in an at least more scientifically advanced world.

The Inquisition was a very progressive court for its time period. Over 90% of its "punishments" were community service or a pilgrimage. It was forbidden to use torture for much of its existance, and when it was allowed to torture it was still heavily restricted (only 1 torture session per victim, no permenant damage/no removing any body part). There were cases of people blaspheming on purpose in order to be tried before the Inquisition instead of the secular courts, as the secular courts were much harsher. The victim rate of the Inquisition is much lower than most people believe. The "most ruthless" of the various Inquisitions, that of Spain, executed less people than the state of Texas.

The crusades were a very just and reasonable war. Moslem armies had attacked France, conquered Spain, wiped out Christian communities in Africa, attacked Greece, launched boat attacks on Italy, etc. all before the crusades. Europe was being squashed by Islam and so a Christian counter-attack was VITAL to the survival of the continent. If it were not for the heroic men who went on the holy crusade, Europe would be known as Eurabia today.

Inquisition comments: source?

Crusade: Zaheran already said everything I would have said.

Pericles, Lincoln and Churchill.

It would have been better if the muslims had won.

I take it you'd rather live in Iran then Europe?

I take it you'd rather live in Iran then Europe?

That's assuming Islam as it is nowadays in countries like Iran was anything like Islam in the days of the Crusades. Which is either an intentionally misleading assertion or a display of a lack of knowledge about Islamic culture of that time period. Hell, they got along nicely with India for a while, right around then. Surprisingly enough.

Lets see. She unleased the English forces upon the helpless Irish, allowing them to rape and pillage at whim. She encouraged wealthy English Protestants to colonize in Ireland and steal Catholic land and forcibly convert the locals. Thousands of Irish perished during her reign. She declared Catholicism illegal and being a priest in England was punishable by death. People were forced to attend Anglican services every Sunday, and many Catholic buildings were literally blown up. Her forces ravaged Scotland as well and killed Catholics there. She had the throat slit of every sailor from the Armada who swam to shore.

She was an anti-Catholic harlot* to the highest degree.

* she had likely affairs with Sir Walter Raleigh, Robert Devereux, Christopher Hatton, and Robert Dudley, along with others. She was the most expensive whore in London.


If you continue to spout unsupported crap, and continue to fail to back any up... I will be forced to assume that which I have suspected the whole time.

That is - you have no real idea. And/or prefer speculation over fact. And/or your argument is a crock of shit.

Lets see. She unleased the English forces upon the helpless Irish, allowing them to rape and pillage at whim. She encouraged wealthy English Protestants to colonize in Ireland and steal Catholic land and forcibly convert the locals. Thousands of Irish perished during her reign. She declared Catholicism illegal and being a priest in England was punishable by death. People were forced to attend Anglican services every Sunday, and many Catholic buildings were literally blown up. Her forces ravaged Scotland as well and killed Catholics there. She had the throat slit of every sailor from the Armada who swam to shore.

Any anti-Catholic policies Elizabeth made were because so many Englishman were anti-Catholic (a change of allegiance whose quickness never fails to surprise me). She herself was not any more horrible than the average man on the street.

That's assuming Islam as it is nowadays in countries like Iran was anything like Islam in the days of the Crusades. Which is either an intentionally misleading assertion or a display of a lack of knowledge about Islamic culture of that time period. Hell, they got along nicely with India for a while, right around then. Surprisingly enough.They also bathed. Do that in Europe and you would be mocked in that time.

They also bathed. Do that in Europe and you would be mocked in that time.

Aye, not to mention they came up with the number 0 (though I'm still somewhat convinced we Indians came up with it first. Harumph) and were responsible for preserving a considerable amount of knowledge from earlier time periods that were lost on Catholic Europe. There's a reason Aquinas' work on the recovered works of Aristotle was called Summa Contra Gentiles (Argument against the Gentiles)

Aye, not to mention they came up with the number 0 (though I'm still somewhat convinced we Indians came up with it first. Harumph) and were responsible for preserving a considerable amount of knowledge from earlier time periods that were lost on Catholic Europe. There's a reason Aquinas' work on the recovered works of Aristotle was called Summa Contra Gentiles (Argument against the Gentiles)
Were would we be without 0. Our computers would be fucked, as would a 4chan mime.

No Russians? Ivan IV ruled over an Empire which, I am given to understand, STILL holds the world record for fastest growth (50 miles a day!). Sure, he went a little crazy in his later years, but who doesnt?
Peter the Great took Muscovy from 14th century backwater to (arguably) the strongest nation in the world.
Catherine, Ivan III, Alexander Nevsky, theres plenty of Ruskies to pick from.

'Course Russia tends to get forgotten even more than Poland for some reason.

Ivan IV (aka Grozniy) was a good leader? In no sense of the word. When he inherited the Muscovite state, it was by far and away the leading power in its region. When he died, it was the weakest. The stress of his wars and his systematic policy of terror caused a huge depopulation of the Muscovite heart lands as abused peasants fled to the border lands, well away from the central authority. He sacked Novgorod, Russia's premier trading city, to such an extent that it never recovered its predominance. He murdered his own son and thus plunged Russia into a dynastic crisis which was one of the main reasons behind the Time of Troubles (an exceedingly devastating period of civil war in the early 1600s). He alienated all of his neighbours so he had no allies to turn to. Russia did not recover from Ivan the Terrible's reign until a century after his death.

As for Peter the Great, the major difference between him and Ivan IV was that Peter successfully prosecuted his wars. The strains Peter put on Russia were astronomical: it is reckoned that by the time he died, the place was near collapse. In many ways, he was just as brutal and sadistic as Ivan the Terrible. The reason he is remembered as being a 'great' leader is because Europeans see him as the bringer of civilisation to Russia (which he really wasn't: European culture took about one hundred years to penetrate the Russian nobility and even then it was only a highly superficial understanding of that culture).

Catherine the Great wasn't that 'great' either, although at least she was slightly less brutal than Peter or Ivan the Terrible. Again, her reputation is mostly based on Europeans holding her to be a beacon of civilisation in the Muscovite darkness. Which she wasn't. And of course, such an interpretation is heavily reliant on European cultural imperialism.

Aleksandr Nevskiy was not great. The Soviets made him into an icon because he fought the Germans. His victories against the Teutonic Knights were far smaller than has been made out to be the case: in fact, they were probably no more than skirmishes. There were simply not enough Teutonic Knights in Livonia at the time for there to have been any large scale battles. Aleksandr Nevskiy should have tried to unify the Russian princes and fight the Mongols: instead, he essentially used Mongol support to crush his Russian opponents and so by the end of his reign, Russia was more under the Tatar yoke than it had ever been before.

As for the list the OP provides: it is rubbish.

My list is not rubbish, I provided 10 truly heroic men ranging from the classical age to modern day.

Without any explanation of why they were heroic, despite several dozen posts explaining how barbaric and uncivilized most of them were.

My list is not rubbish, I provided 10 truly heroic men ranging from the classical age to modern day.

And it would probably be better. The crusades were organized to solve Europes inner problems. The "muslim threat against Europe" was a hoax to get public support. And counterattacking by slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians does seem a little radical. Calling the crusaders "heroic" is like calling the Nazis heroic. They were no better. At that time, the Muslim nations were far more advanced than the european ones. Europe was a barbaric place. It would have been better if the muslims had won.

You are truly a moron. The Muslim threat was very genuine. Ever hear of the Battle of Tours? Moorish conquest of Spain? Evacuation in Rome because of Turkish warships? In 1095 Seljuk Muslims banned all Christian pilgrims from Jerusalem, the most holy Christian city. They killed numerous pilgrims after that and burned down the Church of the Holy Sepulchure. Turkish forces were eating away at the Byzantine empire. If they broke through (and they eventually did, see battle of Mohacs or siege of Vienna) all hell would break loose.

While the crusaders killed some civilians, the Muslims killed civilians as well (some estimate around 80,000 Christians killed in Antioch alone by Moslems). Saladin was no gentlemen, he enslaved Christians in Jerusalem that could not pay their way out and he had every captured knight strangled after the battle of Hattin.

As a man of European heritage, I honor my crusader ancestors. The crusader knights were HEROS who gave up everything to defend their homeland from the ravaging Mohammedan hordes. Show these great men some respect. If it was not for them you'd be in a mosque right now or stoned to death and lying in a gutter.

As a man of European heritage, I honor my crusader ancestors. The crusader knights were HEROS who gave up everything to defend their homeland from the ravaging Mohammedan hordes. Show these great men some respect. If it was not for them you'd be in a mosque right now or stoned to death and lying in a gutter.

To say that the Crusaders were any better than the Muslims in just about any respect is the height of idiocy. Seriously. Many Crusaders were motivated by religious zeal, but just as many were motivated by greed. Slaughter was indiscriminate on both sides, but that's how wars were back then. The concept of minimizing civilian casualties in wartime is pretty much a modern one. They were all assholes, but I state that as my opinion rather than objective fact.

PS: using terms like Mohammedan hordes isn't going to win you any friends here.

Caesar is not over-rated, very few Roman emperors were ever voted demi-gods by the senate and you missed his son Augustus, being gifted the name Augustus was a feat in itself, Elizabeth I was brilliant if only for being the first Tudor monarch not to fully endorse the burning of a particular denomination of christianity and she was just one of the strongest female leaders in history, Alexander the great cannot be left off that's just silly, you only left him off because he had sex with men...it was ancient Greece who didn't, and people still should it's good for the soul, Plato and Socrates were right about things aslong as they didn't get involved in science, the sex bit they got mostly right. Crusaders were not heros they were religious fanatics lead by bored European leaders, similar to the bored European leaders that started WW1, I'm European and I will not defend them. Theo you have compiled a list of truly vile and uncivilised people, and yet a list of barbarians without Hitler on it, how odd, if I were compiling a list of the nastiest people in history there are people on your list I wouldn't put in and people you haven't put in I would.

To say that the Crusaders were any better than the Muslims in just about any respect is the height of idiocy. Seriously. Many Crusaders were motivated by religious zeal, but just as many were motivated by greed. Slaughter was indiscriminate on both sides, but that's how wars were back then. The concept of minimizing civilian casualties in wartime is pretty much a modern one. They were all assholes, but I state that as my opinion rather than objective fact.

PS: using terms like Mohammedan hordes isn't going to win you any friends here.

You have to take everything he says with a Pillar of Salt. :p

My list is not rubbish, I provided 10 truly heroic men ranging from the classical age to modern day.

The list you posted is complete and utter rubbish. You didn't tell us why these people are so damn great in the first place. Besides, just because you think they're great doesn't make them so; it's just your opinion; baseless conjecture and not fact.

The list you posted is complete and utter rubbish. You didn't tell us why these people are so damn great in the first place. Besides, just because you think they're great doesn't make them so; it's just your opinion; baseless conjecture and not fact.

In fairness, there is no reason he should tell us why they're great. He just provided a list, and asked us to choose our favorite.
However, if you then go on to say, "...I provided 10 truly heroic men ranging from the classical age to modern day," you should definitely explain why.

Constantine I- Officially passed laws for toleration of Christians, first Roman to do so

Theodosis- Made Christianity official Roman religion

Charlemagne- Purged Europe of paganism, united various groups, encouraged education

St. Louis IX- Brave and fought against Mohammedan hordes personally

Philip II- Attempted to cleanse England of the perverted harlot Queen Elizabeth I, greatly expanded Spains overseas empire

Antonio Salazar- Anti-communist Portugese leader, brought about near miraculous growth in modern Portugal

Francisco Franco- Anti-communist Spanish leader, brought stability and order to Spain

Ngo Dinh Diem- Wise Vietnamese leader who foresaw the danger presented by tolerating communist presence in any nation

Dwight Eisenhower- D-Day commander, anti-communist president, strengthened American/European security, broke down racial barriers, etc.

Ronald Reagan- Contributed to the decline of USSR, brought about much needed conservative values to America

Constantine I- Officially passed laws for toleration of Christians, first Roman to do so
True. No argument there.

Theodosis- Made Christianity official Roman religion
True. No argument there.

Charlemagne- Purged Europe of paganism, united various groups, encouraged educationI can see that. Sure, why not?

St. Louis IX- Brave and fought against Mohammedan hordes personallyI don't like the term "Mohammedan hordes."

Philip II- Attempted to cleanse England of the perverted harlot Queen Elizabeth I, greatly expanded Spains overseas empireHad goals, but wasn't really realistic. I think he did more harm than good.

Antonio Salazar- Anti-communist Portugese leader, brought about near miraculous growth in modern PortugalHe was a dictator, even if he did discourage communism and Nazism.

Francisco Franco- Anti-communist Spanish leader, brought stability and order to Spain:eek::eek::eek:

Ngo Dinh Diem- Wise Vietnamese leader who foresaw the danger presented by tolerating communist presence in any nationI'm still getting over Franco.

Dwight Eisenhower- D-Day commander, anti-communist president, strengthened American/European security, broke down racial barriers, etc.Still getting over it...

Ronald Reagan- Contributed to the decline of USSR, brought about much needed conservative values to AmericaGreat, I just got over having Franco on the list, and now you have Reagan. No where near as bad, but still...

Seriously? You support mass execution of people who favour a system where the factors of production are allocated by the state?

Yes, that is part of the ideology that morons preach - and I oppose. Is there a problem with that?

Constantine I- Officially passed laws for toleration of Christians, first Roman to do so

Theodosis- Made Christianity official Roman religion

Charlemagne- Purged Europe of paganism, united various groups, encouraged education

St. Louis IX- Brave and fought against Mohammedan hordes personally

Philip II- Attempted to cleanse England of the perverted harlot Queen Elizabeth I, greatly expanded Spains overseas empire

Antonio Salazar- Anti-communist Portugese leader, brought about near miraculous growth in modern Portugal

Francisco Franco- Anti-communist Spanish leader, brought stability and order to Spain

Ngo Dinh Diem- Wise Vietnamese leader who foresaw the danger presented by tolerating communist presence in any nation

Dwight Eisenhower- D-Day commander, anti-communist president, strengthened American/European security, broke down racial barriers, etc.

Ronald Reagan- Contributed to the decline of USSR, brought about much needed conservative values to America

So, five of those leaders were great because they were anti-communist (and in some cases, fascist), four of them because they spread Christianity (by the sword) or resisted other religions (by the sword), and one for apparently sexist reasons.

*claps sarcastically*

As a man of European heritage, I honor my crusader ancestors. The crusader knights were HEROS who gave up everything to defend their homeland from the ravaging Mohammedan hordes. Show these great men some respect. If it was not for them you'd be in a mosque right now or stoned to death and lying in a gutter.

Er… they fought for money, and to be 'relieved' of their sins. Don't know where the HERO aspect fits in there.

You are truly a moron. The Muslim threat was very genuine. Ever hear of the Battle of Tours? Moorish conquest of Spain? Evacuation in Rome because of Turkish warships? In 1095 Seljuk Muslims banned all Christian pilgrims from Jerusalem, the most holy Christian city. They killed numerous pilgrims after that and burned down the Church of the Holy Sepulchure. Turkish forces were eating away at the Byzantine empire. If they broke through (and they eventually did, see battle of Mohacs or siege of Vienna) all hell would break loose.

While the crusaders killed some civilians, the Muslims killed civilians as well (some estimate around 80,000 Christians killed in Antioch alone by Moslems). Saladin was no gentlemen, he enslaved Christians in Jerusalem that could not pay their way out and he had every captured knight strangled after the battle of Hattin.

As a man of European heritage, I honor my crusader ancestors. The crusader knights were HEROS who gave up everything to defend their homeland from the ravaging Mohammedan hordes. Show these great men some respect. If it was not for them you'd be in a mosque right now or stoned to death and lying in a gutter.

Nope. The muslim countries were far more advanced and liberal countries then. Your catholic church was holding Europe in barbary. There is a reason it´s called the Dark Ages. And the knights were just greedy barbarians and deserved whatever they got. If the Turks had crushed the Catholic church then they would have done the world a favor. Nowadays, I agree that most of the muslim world is more primitive than Europe. But at the time of the crusades, it was the Arabs who was more civilized. Looking at you, it´s not only muslims who are religious fundamentalists.

Andrew Jackson anyone?

Andrew Jackson anyone?

I laughed, I'll admit.

You are truly a moron.


Flaming won't help your cause. Unless your cause 'try to get banned'.


The Muslim threat was very genuine. Ever hear of the Battle of Tours? Moorish conquest of Spain? Evacuation in Rome because of Turkish warships?


Really? People waging a war under the auspices of their church? Never!

What do you think the Crusaders did, licked people with kittens?


In 1095 Seljuk Muslims banned all Christian pilgrims from Jerusalem, the most holy Christian city.


The most holy Jewish city, first - until Christianity over-ran it...


As a man of European heritage, I honor my crusader ancestors.


As a European, I think the Crusaders were gold-digging oppurtunists.


If it was not for them you'd be in a mosque right now...

And that would be... bad. Right?

Er… they fought for money, and to be 'relieved' of their sins. Don't know where the HERO aspect fits in there.

Ever hear of "Crusaders Insurance?" I'll tell you: the Crusaders were about to embark on the Crusades. However, they knew there would be a lot of sinning, what with all the pillaging, and other crimes. They figured the indulgences charged them after they got back would be pretty steep; yet with all the money gained, they should theoretically be able to pay them. What if...just supposing that the trip proved fruitless? All that sinning for nothing! And the fees! Oy Vey!

So what did they do? They literally got "sin insurance" from a merchant. If the trip proved fruitless, then their indulgences would still be covered. And if they made it back with loot, then the insurer would get a slice of the pie.

Quite funny if you ask me. :D

Andrew Jackson anyone?

:p

St. Louis IX- Brave and fought against Mohammedan hordes personally

... and failed miserably?

Philip II- Attempted to cleanse England of the perverted harlot Queen Elizabeth I

... and failed miserably?

Ngo Dinh Diem- Wise Vietnamese leader who foresaw the danger presented by tolerating communist presence in any nation

... and failed miserably at preventing communism from taking hold?

Yes, that is part of the ideology that morons preach - and I oppose. Is there a problem with that?

Yes, there are a number of problems with that.
Firstly, the moral implications of believing people should be executed because you disagree with their political views.
Secondly, the fact that a communist/planned economy is a perfectly valid alternative to capitalism if, for instance, your country has seriously limited resources or technology. Once things are running stably, then you can look at moving towards a more capitalist system.
Thirdly, making asinine statements about how Hitler was 'on the ball' when he organised mass executions is against the rules of common sense, decency, and this forum.

Ngo Dinh Diem. So great, you've never heard of him.

Emperor Constantine I- LOL, the beginning of the end of the doctrine that Jesus spoke, I cannot give him much. But hey, at least he founded Constantinople, and that city was pretty nice.

Emperor Theodosis the Great- Replacing Paganism with Christianity is good, I guess...but not by the sword of the Romans.

Charlemagne- A good king, but nonetheless, responsible for spreading Catholicism into Spain, which gets thumbs down.

King St. Louis IX- A better prisoner-of-war than warrior or strategist, he didn't really succeed in much in my eyes, very overrated.

King Philip II of Spain- I'm not sure if failing at most of your real aims and hurting your Kingdom by constant warfare counts as being a great leader....put Saddam on here, he was Philip II of the Middle East.

Francisco Franco- If not for the cowardice and treason of Western Europe, this man would have hung from a lamp-post in 1936.

Antonio Salazar- Again, why the Fascists? Oh...right, Salazar wasn't Fascist, he was just very Catholic.

Ngo Dinh Diem- How about Ho Chi Minh on this list? or Vo Nguyen Giap? Anyone who tries to enforce their religion (it being a minority) on the vast majority of the population, especially when their religion is a foreign one, and who only serves the interest of foreign powers, cannot be a truly good leader. Diem got what was coming to him.

Dwight Eisenhower- For what? What did he do to get on this list? D-Day? Right, because the Soviets were already in Poland and advancing steadily to liberate Eastern Europe. The war was basically over. For his Presidency? Building highways is good, you got me there.

Ronald Reagan- A man who did nothing but introduce an economic system which has led to more deficits that anything before it and who aided terrorists in Nicaragua, as well as led the invasion of Grenada. I don't think this man deserves to be anywhere but in his grave, just imo. After all, I bet little 2 year old Hanna loves Reagan, she can always look far down and wave at him.


How about this list:
Akhenaten- Without his concept of Monotheism, it can be argued that none would hold those beliefs. Many historians argue that he was the influence on Moses, how's that for good?

Khalifah Umar II- Anyone who takes none of his salary, puts it into the treasury, does the deeds of his servants (like cleaning) and wears rags, is a great leader. Fantastic wealth does not make one great, one is great because they live amongst the people, Umar II is a great example of modest living and good, pious, fair rule.

Khalifah al-Muizz- Founded the city of Cairo, his Empire reached across North Africa and the Sham regions. Was a centre of enlightenment as he built massive libraries in Cairo, and the al-Azhar university and promoted a system where men were judged and placed into offices based on merit and not lineage or religion, meaning that Sunnis, Christians and Jews had many offices aswell.

Salah ad-Din ibn Ayyub- You want to get into Crusades? Yeah, thought so. He retook Jerusalem and unlike when the Catholics took it, he didn't massacre women and children; that's always a plus.

Suleiman the Magnificient- Expanding the Empire and making it an effective hyper-power, while improving the legal system and continuing a policy of tolerance towards other religions, it is always good. Unlike Philip II, Suleiman won most of his wars and didn't wreck his country.

Manuel Azaña- It can't hurt to try to save your Republic from a ruthless dictator like Franco, but it can get you killed by the Nazis in the end. A martyr and a hero for the concept of the European Republic, which Western Europe continued to ignore, supporting Fascism in Iberia until the 1970s.

Salvador Allende- Again, being martyred for the ideas of the Republic is true heroism. Murdered by the CIA and Augusto Pinochet, it was the legacy of Allende that got us through the Pinochet years. Victor Jara, Pablo Neruda, and the many thousands that died are never forgotten. Allende was a Communist, but a man of peace and democracy. Pinochet was a man of Capitalism, brutal and tyrannical. So much for the Free World eh?

Ho Chi Minh/Vo Nguyen Giap- It's a tie for this spot. Ho Chi Minh was a great organizer and led his people to freedom against the Japanese, French and Americans, while Vo Nguyen Giap can be said to be the greatest military mind of the 20th Century, winning against the Japanese, the French at Dien Bien Phu, leading the Tet Offensive and the Liberation of South Vietnam, the Liberation of Kampuchea and the Defence against China. There used to be the saying that There was never a greater mind under heaven than Zhuge Liang, but I say that Vo Nguyen Giap takes the military mantle from Kongming.

Kwame Nkrumah- Having the idea of freeing and uniting your people is always good. If Africa were united, it would be strong and would not have been a battleground for the Soviets and Americans, better yet, it wouldn't be completely dominated by Western neo-colonialism and debt today.

Muammar al-Qadhafi- Introducing the concept of Direct Democracy in a modern form, while being Anti-Capitalist and Anti-Communist is a great accomplishment. Truly announced the third way in the Cold War, it is just a shame that the concept of the Jamahiriya haven't spread.

Honourable Mentions:
Josip Broz Tito- Led Yugoslavia into a neutral course in the Cold War and gave Yugoslavia a thriving and democratic economic system. Look at Yugoslavia in 1974 and compare it to Yugoslavia in 1994, my case rests.

Hugo Chavez- The New Allende, he is freeing the people and introducing much needed Democratic reforms to the system after the 1970s and 1980s introduced the Fascist, Military Dictatorships backed by the Americans. Freedom!

Nelson Mandela- People forget about poor Mandela and the Umkhonto we Sizwe. Fighting for racial equality against the South African government. It is a good thing that the Cubans aided the fight in Angola, but of course, you probably hate Fidel.

Gamal Abdel Nasser- Uniting your people against colonialism is a good thing, being so popular that when you try to resign, an entire world region protests and tries to keep you in office, better.

Ati Ruminahui- A martyr against Spanish tyranny in the "New World". Before the Spanish arrived, it had a population of 121 Million, Ruminahui is one of the few Tahuantansuyu military commanders who didn't bow before the Spanish, and fought to the death. By the end of the Catholic forced conversion, the New World now had a population of 1 million natives...ouch, I guess 120 Million deaths (not even counting population growth) does probably take the cake for genocide.

What do you think the Crusaders did, licked people with kittens?


And it was the most goshdurned cute Crusade of them all!

Emperor Theodosis the Great- Replacing Paganism with Christianity is good, I guess...but not by the sword of the Romans.


Why do people keep insisting that replacing one religion (or group of religions, it's not like 'paganism' is a coherent unit) with another... is good?

I'd say freedom of religion is one of the marks of a good society.

Why do people keep insisting that replacing one religion (or group of religions, it's not like 'paganism' is a coherent unit) with another... is good?

I'd say freedom of religion is one of the marks of a good society.

If you have read any of my other posts, you know that I am very for freedom of religion. I personally believe Christianity was more correct that most of the Pagan beliefs, but as I said, the way to make it succeed is not by the sword.

Which of these noble historical leaders is worthy of the most praise?

How do we score them, by intentional deaths or otherwise?

If you have read any of my other posts, you know that I am very for freedom of religion. I personally believe Christianity was more correct that most of the Pagan beliefs, but as I said, the way to make it succeed is not by the sword.

How can Christianity be 'more correct'? How can you even pretend that can balance against freedom of religion?

If Christianity is the 'most correct' religion, gods help us.

How do we score them, by intentional deaths or otherwise?

Whichever one you'd least mind having coffee with.

How can Christianity be 'more correct'? How can you even pretend that can balance against freedom of religion?

If Christianity is the 'most correct' religion, gods help us.

He said personally, this does not mean that he wants the state to favour Christianity.

He said personally, this does not mean that he wants the state to favour Christianity.

That's kind of beside the point.

"You're all equally valid. Well, except Christianity, which is better."

Whichever one you'd least mind having coffee with.

To inspire is to lead, I'll take tea.

I have always called for freedom of religion. I said my personal opinion was that Christianity was more correct than most of the Pagan beliefs at the time. I never said it was the "most correct" as you have said I did.

I stated a personal opinion about the late 300s.

I am Muslim, I believe Islam is the correct religion; and like all religions, it can be plagued by excessive hierarchy and people who wish to force others along that religious road.

Have I ever called for the victory of religion by force of arms? No. But, realistically, some religions will win out because people accept them. Right now, Europe has many millions of Muslims and Islam is the fastest growing religion on Earth. This is not because of any violent action, it is because when people analyze it, they will find the religion that is best for them. That is freedom of religion, allowing people to find the religion that suits them.

To inspire is to lead, I'll take tea.

One lump, or two? Milk?

I have always called for freedom of religion. I said my personal opinion was that Christianity was more correct than most of the Pagan beliefs at the time. I never said it was the "most correct" as you have said I did.

I stated a personal opinion about the late 300s.

I am Muslim, I believe Islam is the correct religion; and like all religions, it can be plagued by excessive hierarchy and people who wish to force others along that religious road.

Have I ever called for the victory of religion by force of arms? No. But, realistically, some religions will win out because people accept them. Right now, Europe has many millions of Muslims and Islam is the fastest growing religion on Earth. This is not because of any violent action, it is because when people analyze it, they will find the religion that is best for them. That is freedom of religion, allowing people to find the religion that suits them.

Mm, the sword v the cross but who are we to judge "Pagan beliefs"
They precurse most else no?
If I set up a religion today would Islam go out of the window because it was older than my new religion that I had just invented?

One lump, or two? Milk?

One, always milk in tea;)

Actually, I would certainly argue Islam itself is older than all other religions.

Secondly, there have been faiths set up after Islam, but none of them had the same impact. Freedom of Religion means people can practice their religion of choice, one which they find to be true. This doesn't mean a Communist system of religion, where we take all religions and divide them equally amongst people, it means people may choose what religion they are and practice.

I oppose the spread of religion by force of arms, not by force of words.

(as for respecting Paganism, I actually have a great deal of respect for Atenism and Intism, both technically Pagan)

Actually, I would certainly argue Islam itself is older than all other religions.

Secondly, there have been faiths set up after Islam, but none of them had the same impact. Freedom of Religion means people can practice their religion of choice, one which they find to be true. This doesn't mean a Communist system of religion, where we take all religions and divide them equally amongst people, it means people may choose what religion they are and practice.

I oppose the spread of religion by force of arms, not by force of words.

(as for respecting Paganism, I actually have a great deal of respect for Atenism and Intism, both technically Pagan)
I don't believe either way but read up a bit.
So we set the date at what, religion? impact?
Various Christion scriptures occur in the Koran which would infer it precursed it, Pagens came before and .....all sorts came after.
Churches in the UK are built on Pagan sites for a reason, read up.
As for anything else you may want to say, we appear to have gone off topic some time back but if you were refering to God as being the greatest leader of all time, ... I don't know, suppose he/she /it may have been.

Actually, I would certainly argue Islam itself is older than all other religions.

Secondly, there have been faiths set up after Islam, but none of them had the same impact. Freedom of Religion means people can practice their religion of choice, one which they find to be true. This doesn't mean a Communist system of religion, where we take all religions and divide them equally amongst people, it means people may choose what religion they are and practice.

I oppose the spread of religion by force of arms, not by force of words.

(as for respecting Paganism, I actually have a great deal of respect for Atenism and Intism, both technically Pagan)
I don't believe either way but read up a bit.
So we set the date at what, religion? impact?
Various Christion scriptures occur in the Koran which would infer it precursed it, Pagens came before and .....all sorts came after.
Churches in the UK are built on Pagan sites for a reason, read up.
As for anything else you may want to say, we appear to have gone off topic some time back but if you were refering to God as being the greatest leader of all time, ... I don't know, suppose he/she /it may have been. ;)

I nominate

Babur, Humayun, Æþelstān, and in a Way Henry III

All that sinning for nothing!

:D

Have I ever called for the victory of religion by force of arms? No. But, realistically, some religions will win out because people accept them. Right now, Europe has many millions of Muslims and Islam is the fastest growing religion on Earth. This is not because of any violent action, it is because when people analyze it, they will find the religion that is best for them. That is freedom of religion, allowing people to find the religion that suits them.
Concerning the part about Europe. That's mainly because of immigration, not because of mass-conversions.


Actually, I would certainly argue Islam itself is older than all other religions.
Islam is based on christianity, which was based on the jewish religion.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster. ~(0_o)~

I second this! :)