|
Post by Big Lin on Apr 18, 2009 18:28:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 20, 2009 0:36:08 GMT
Guessing - probably a moderate liberal. All these righteous reformers are very interesting. Cobbetts the one I'd like a chat with, though. Thanks, Lin. I'd never heard of any of them before.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 22, 2009 2:00:23 GMT
Agree that history is really interesting. I'm a Napoleon Bonaparte fan. He came to power under very difficult conditions as the French Revolution was winding down. The other European powers were appalled that France had overthrown the monarchy. The royalist countries (Russia, Austria, Prussia, England) were determined to displace Napoleon and return the Bourbon Royalists to power. Napoleon gave them a good run for their money. It is fascinating history. I just finished reading a biography of Napoleon written in 1903 by August Fornier. It is posted on Google Books and is excellent. Here is a link books.google.com/books?id=tJEQAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=napoleon+the+firstSkipping ahead 150 or so years, another hero is Admiral Spruance of the US Navy who commanded the Battle of Midway which changed the course of WW II in the Pacific. Amazing leadership at a critical time.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Apr 23, 2009 0:24:03 GMT
It's hard to know with Napoleon. Kill a king and gain an emperor. Is that a step forward or back? The French Revolution was a much bigger shambles than Cromwell's war. Nobody really knew what they wanted or even for certain what they didn't. The one thing they might have agreed on is just like the Russian Revolution, a strong decisive monarch. Louis wasn't weak - in fact he started very popular - but the very steps that Louis XIV took to ritualise the monarchy and keep the nobility in his sight smothered the king under ritual and kept all the courtiers where they could conspire against him. Tokugawa Ieyasu did exactly the same with the Edo Shogunate with exactly the same results at about the same time.
As far as the Revolution was co-ordinated at all it ran into a short-lived police state and then the pretty useless Directorate and the Consulate. Napoleon gave it the strong man they wanted and perhaps nothing closer to democracy was feasible at the time. At the same time there's a touch of Hitler about him. Nobody likes to be defeated but he made sure to conquer them as well by establishing his numerous brothers as kings, not to allow them collaborationist local meritocracies like France. I think he counts as a proto-fascist but the ideals of Fascism were not necessarily bad for that time. On the whole, he was probably A Good Thing not necessarily recognised as such by conquered patriots of the day. It happens that Alexandr III was one of the very few liberal Tsars inspired by ideals of the Enlightened Despot. I'm not so sure that Napoleon was. It's disturbing to any thought that he wanted to replace the Ancien Regime with something else that he put his son's succession into formal law.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 25, 2009 14:14:58 GMT
One thing I find interesting about Napoleonic history is that the English hated him and the French adored him. Since most Napoleon biographies were written by English or French authors, you get either a Jekyll or Hyde view depending on source. The August Fournier biographry referenced above does a good job of showing both the good and the bad side of Napoleon. It is also posted on books.google.com so you can read it for free.
Incidentally, Napoleon came very close to invading England. In his view, he would have been liberating the British from a tryranical monarchy rather than conquering England. To his way of thinking, raising the French flag over the Tower of London would have been a very good thing for the people of Britain.
The invasion force was assembled and ready to go. He was just waiting for the French and Spanish Naval fleet to sail from Toulon to the English Channel as they were needed to provide protection for his flat bottom barges during the channel crossing. Lord Nelson intercepted and destroyed his fleet at the Battle of Trafalgar which put a hold on the invasion. Then the eastern powers declared war on France and he was compelled to march is army to Austria where he enjoyed one of history's greatest military victories in the Battle of Austerlitz. The army that won at Austerlitz was the same army that had been preparing for the invasion of England. Can't help but wonder how things might have turned out had he made that channel crossing.
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Apr 25, 2009 19:54:27 GMT
My hero of the Napoleonic wars was Marshall Blucher, the Prussian C.in C. The day before Waterloo, the Prussians clashed with Napoleons main army at Ligney, and were fairly comprehensively beaten. On the same day Wellington fought an indecisive battle at Quatres Bras against a French force under Marshall Ney, and was forced back towards Waterloo. Instead of retiring from the field, as most beaten generals would have done, old Blucher somehow rallied his troops and turned them back towards the next days battle at Waterloo. And had he not done so, the day could well have gone to the French, for by 2pm that day, they were winning the battle. But Napoleon had to divert troops he could not afford to lose to chase the retreating Prussians, under Marshall Grouchy, and had to reserve troops to cover his right flank against the possibility of the Prussians returning to Wellingtons aid.
Which they did in the nick of time. A close run thing, as Wellington himself said. Who knows how the day would have gone had Blucher continued his retreat from Ligney away from the battle?
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 26, 2009 13:26:57 GMT
Blucher did indeed make the decisive move in the Battle of Waterloo. Napoleon was interviews in 1817 while in captivity on St. Helena. He made these remarks about that battle: March 26, 1817. Napoleon conversed a good deal about the battle of Waterloo. "The plan of the battle," said he, "will not, in the eyes of the historian, reflect any credit on Lord Wellington as a general. In the first place, he ought not to have given battle with the armies divided; they ought to have been united and encamped before the 15th. In the next, the choice of ground was bad, because, if he had been beaten, he could not have retreated, as there" was only one road leading to the forest in his rear. He also committed a fault which might have proved the destruction of all his army, without its ever having commenced the campaign or being drawn out in battle—he allowed himself to be surprised. On the 15th I was at Charleroi, and had. beaten the Prussians without hts knowing any thing about it. I had gained forty-eight hours of maneuvers upon him, which was a great object, and, if some of my generals had shown that vigor and genius which they had displayed in other times, I should have taken his army in cantonments without ever fighting a battle. But they were discouraged, and fancied that they saw an army of a hundred thousand men every where opposed to them. " I had not time enough myself to attend to the minutae of the army. I accounted upon surprising and cutting them up in detail. I knew of Bulow's arrival at eleven o'clock, but I did not regard it; I had still eighty chances out of a hundred in my favor. Notwithstanding the great superiority of force against me, I was convinced that I should obtain the victory. I had about seventy thousand men, of whom fifteen thousand were cavalry. I had also two hundred and fifty pieces of cannon; but my troops were so good, that I esteemed them sufficient to beat a hundred and twenty thousand. Now Lord Wellington had under his command about ninety thousand, and two hundred and fifty pieces of cannon, and Bulow had thirty thousand, making a hundred and twenty thousand. Of all those troops, however, I only reckoned the English as being able to cope with my own; the others I thought little of. I believe that of English there were from thirty-five to forty thousand; these I esteemed to be as brave and as good as my own troops. The English army was well known latterly on the Continent; and, besides, your nation possesses courage and energy. As to the Prussians, Belgians, and others, half the number of my troops were sufficient to beat them. I only left thirty-four thousand men to take care of the Prussians. "The chief causes of the loss of that battle were, first of all, Grouchy's great tardiness and neglect in executing his orders; next, the grenadiers a cheval and the cavalry under General Guyot, which I had in reserve, and which were never to leave me, engaged without orders and without my knowledge; so that after the last charge, when the troops were beaten, and the English cavalry advanced, I had not a single corps of cavalry in reserve to resist them, instead of one which I esteemed to be equal to double their own number. In consequence of this, the English attack succeeded, and all was lost. There was no means of rallying. The youngest general would not have committed the fault of leaving an army entirely without reserve, which, however, occurred here, whether in consequence of treason or not, I can not say. These were the two principal causes of the loss of the battle of Waterloo. " If Lord Wellington had intrenched himself," continued he, " I would not have attacked him. As a general, hid plan did not show talent. He certainly displayed great courage and obstinacy, but a little must be taken away even from that when you consider that he had no means of retreat, and that, had he made the attempt, not a man of his army would have escaped. First, to the firmness and bravery of his troops, for the English fought with the greatest obstinacy and courage, he is principally indebted for the victory, and not to his own conduct as a general; and next, to the arrival of Blucher, to whom the victory is more to be attributed than to Wellington, and more credit due as a general, because he, although beaten the day before, assembled his troops, and brought them into action in the evening. I believe, however," continued Napoleon, " that Wellington is a man of great firmness. The glory of such a victory is a great thing; but in the eye of the historian, his military reputation will gain nothing by it." source: books.google.com/books?id=8vcsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PT500&vq=wellington&dq=napoleon+anecdotes&as_brr=1&output=text
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jun 6, 2009 21:59:04 GMT
My 3 heroes, who i would most like to meet are: 1 ) Jesus Christ! My Savior! 2 ) Joan of Arc 3 ) Helen of Troy
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jun 12, 2009 1:16:09 GMT
It's not easy to choose just three heroes given the canvas of world history. However, I'll give it a try.
Abe Lincoln would have to be in the mix. He was a great leader in times of extreme turmoil. He made the most difficult decisions imaginable going against very strong public opinion. He had a compass of his own and chose to do what he knew was right and just. He was not a politician who would say whatever might make him more popular. He steered a steady course through the darkest days. And then he was murdered by one of the many who hated him. Americans who were alive in his day would find it incredible to think that he is widely admired today as one of our greatest Presidents. It took 100 plus years for historians to get an accurate fix on Abe.
Winston Churchill is another of my greatest heroes. He faced the Dunkirk evacuations, the Battle of Britain, the Battle of the Atlantic against Hitler's U-Boats, and the Normandy invastion. It seems as if he was almost always on the losing side in the first years of WW II. He had an amazing ability to rally the citizens and his allies. Winston was exactly what the western countries needed with the Third Reich attempting to conquer our world.
George W Bush reminds me a lot of Abe Lincoln. When he first came into office his welcome was 9/11. He was a visionary who made difficult and unpopular but correct decisions when dealing with the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq. He had to deal with our enemies overseas and also with an American media (TV and newspapers and Internet blogs like the Huffington Post) enemies who might as well have been employed by the Taliban. It was a very raw deal for George and for America that he couldn't get support from our own media or from the opposition party. But like Abe, George had a compass of his own. He knew that doing the right thing was his duty. He didn't cave in to media critics. He stood his ground and historians will admire him for that. I think he will ultimately be admired as one of our greatest Presidents. Hopefully he won't have to wait 100 plus years for that recognition as did Abe.
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Aug 1, 2009 19:39:44 GMT
I regard George W. Bush as the polar opposite of Lincoln.
Bush is a man of no real talent or accomplishments who, through a combination of the injustice of the American class system and a bizarre series of events, ended up in the most important job in the world - a job for which he was almost completely unqualified by any rational measure.
Until well into middle age, Bush was an unambiguous failure. A beneficiary of endless unearned privileges - admissions to the best schools, soft military service during Vietnam, plum business deals during the oil boom - he squandered the many opportunities that were handed him because he was his father's son, while partying his way through large sums of other people's money.
That he decided to sober up and finally get a real job is to his credit. That this job was governor of America's third-largest state is disturbing. His rapid ascent from failed crony capitalist to president of the United States has created a remarkable overall résumé - one that's all hat and no cattle, as they say in Texas.
The post mortem on the Bush presidency is about how a guy whose willful blundering caused the gratuitous violent deaths of half a million or more people avoided prosecution for war crimes.
His lifetime achievements essentially consist of winning elections. He was pretty much a complete life failure when he was handed a sweetheart deal by his daddy's rich and influential friends (which he financed with likely insider trading) for a piece of the Texas Rangers, thus ensuring he would have some money to play with.
He has been terrible at everything he ever did. He was a bad student, a bad soldier, a bad businessman, a bad drunk, a non-entity as a governor, and then he topped it all off by being by general consensus the worst president of modern times.
Other than that, he had jack. The governor's role in Texas is extremely limited compared to other states; other than the sec of state, his entire cabinet is picked by the voters and the lt. governor runs on a separate ticket and has frequently been from a different party. Being governor of Texas gives you a lot of experience in being a simple-minded stooge... which pretty much explains W's term in office.
George W. Bush took the country to war on the basis of an argument he himself didn't really believe. In the annals of presidential dishonesty, this isn't quite as unambiguous as lying about an extra-marital affair. But it will be what he is best remembered for.
Economically Bush was an anti-New Deal radical masquerading as a moderate Republican, whose domestic agenda is dominated by two goals: making the richest Americans richer, by shifting the nation's tax bill toward the middle class, and pandering to whatever interest group will help him get re-elected. Bush's tax policies have decreased the percentage of taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans by about 10 percent, while increasing the percentage of the overall tax burden paid by those earning moderate incomes.
Bush decided to fight the Iraq war on credit, along with the gargantuan prescription drug bill and the continual feeding frenzy of K Street lobbyists at the fiscal trough, provide ample evidence that the Bush administration is happy to jettison conservative principles whenever it's buying votes, which was often.
Barrack Obama walked into perhaps the biggest pile of manure when he took office. It is no coincidence that he followed 8 years of the worst president in US history. Future historians, moreover, will record Bush as such.
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Aug 2, 2009 15:46:24 GMT
OK, having, for the moment, extinguished my seething contempt for Mr. Bush, I should mention my own three heroes:
Chico Mendes Thomas Paine Pete Seeger
|
|
|
Post by beth on Aug 4, 2009 14:24:37 GMT
Robert Kennedy Gore Vidal Carl Sagan
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 4, 2009 14:34:03 GMT
peter the great boudica elizabeth the first OR henry the 8th alexander the great thomas aquinas
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Aug 14, 2009 0:20:22 GMT
Bush is a man of no real talent or accomplishments who, through a combination of the injustice of the American class system and a bizarre series of events, ended up in the most important job in the world - a job for which he was almost completely unqualified by any rational measure. That sounds to me like a 100 percent dead-on perfect description of Obama. That's not even close to a description of GW Bush. George was the biggest upgrade in US Presidential history (considering his sorry and pathetic predecessor), and Obama is shaping up to be the biggest downgrade.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Aug 14, 2009 0:50:31 GMT
Robert Kennedy Gore Vidal Carl Sagan EEEEKKKKKK. Gore Vidal was one of the world's three dumbest men when he was alive. He was joined by Noam Chomsky and Keith Oblermann. Now that he's dead his replacement is Senator Chuck Schumer.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Aug 14, 2009 22:48:01 GMT
Robert Kennedy Gore Vidal Carl Sagan EEEEKKKKKK. Gore Vidal was one of the world's three dumbest men when he was alive. He was joined by Noam Chomsky and Keith Oblermann. Now that he's dead his replacement is Senator Chuck Schumer. How tiresome, das. Few people would go into a thread and attack another poster's heroes. lol Guess you're one of those. OK, how little you know, my reason for choosing Vidal is not political. First, he's an incredibly gifted writer. A couple of the first novels I fell in love with (beyond Ayn Rand) were his Julian and Washington D. C.. Later, I read Burr twice over about 5 years and wouldn't mind reading it again. Also, I admire the man for deciding how he wanted to live his life and following through in spite of criticism and (in a few cases) loss of friendships and influential ties. IMO, it was honest and brave. Now then, I did consider NC as a hero, but he wouldn't have been in the top 3. KO - delightful man who has his thumb on the pulse of the blowhards, but not really a hero of mine. If I'd been choosing #4, I might have picked Ed Murrow. Of course, you realize Gore Vidal is still very much alive. Yeah, I knew you did, since you didn't include yourself in your "dumb" list.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Aug 17, 2009 22:55:28 GMT
Noam Chomsky is well known for being one of the stupidest men alive. Who but a complete idiot would invent a whole new mathematical discipline that people with no need of a college education can't understand and those with struggle to?
|
|
|
Post by beth on Aug 17, 2009 23:13:17 GMT
Noam Chomsky is well known for being one of the stupidest men alive. Who but a complete idiot would invent a whole new mathematical discipline that people with no need of a college education can't understand and those with struggle to? I think Chomsky is very bright, ratarsed, but as often happens with very intelligent people, he expects too much of others and doesn't seem to have a realistic world view.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Aug 17, 2009 23:27:15 GMT
Tell you what, his mathematical linguistics was fairly new when I had to study it and believe me, not having a maths background that stuff is some heavy going! Try reading his Manufacturing Consent - very astute.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Aug 18, 2009 4:01:00 GMT
Tell you what, his mathematical linguistics was fairly new when I had to study it and believe me, not having a maths background that stuff is some heavy going! Try reading his Manufacturing Consent - very astute. oh ouch! Did you really have to or was it an elective? I remember hearing Bill Hicks say, in an interview, that he read Chomsky between shows to kill time . . . and I'm thinking -naahhh, c'mon . . . I've read bits and pieces of Failed States, and I own The Essential Chomsky, but I don't get enough time to stretch my attention span sufficiently to actually enjoy it. Maybe some day.
|
|