|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2019 5:52:34 GMT
A lot of people like hating historical figures without judging the current political or social environment at that time,or even consider the ethical norms of the time. People just see the death count and see those people as evil, and they turn a blind eye to the silent atrocities that were occurring during that time as well. Although if we use our traditional ethics now, they are considered evil, but when we use their own morality at the time, or see their acts not through the lens of morality, but rather on its impact on the future and/or with their intentions on why they did so, these people would at least be redeemed from their "evil" status, or even be seen as great men who had the balls to take life on life itself and change the very future of the world, for better or worse. One of these figures that i see people demonize is the french revolutionary Robespierre. Reading through works about him, it seems that he was just a guy who wanted to change the world for the better, but his timing of ending the revolution was a bit too late ( some sources would say that he planned to end the revolution just the next day after finishing off the list of people that should be guillotined.) Most of those who carried out the revolution were women who saw their kids starved to death because of the ignorance of the nobles. It was bloody, true, but it also show the elite at the time how shaky the foundation of power they held. Had the revolution succeeded, and all of the ideas of the revolution was enacted, then the world we see today would be different from that of what we have now. But even if only some of the ideas succeeded, such as democracy and freedom from religion, it had a great impact on our modern society. Also, this paved way to napoloen, which paved way to the birth of the modern military and also the napoleonic code, which in turn led to the birth of modern politiking. As for Robespierre himself, he seemed hypocritical for being against death penalty, but then being the one sending people to the guillotine, i think he simply was being pragmatic. The idea of radical change that threatened the very idea of monarchy, not just the monarchs, was too dangerous for the monarchs and the supporters of monarchy. Thus the simplest way of making his rule secure was to simply kill of the monarchy and it's supporters, just like how the monarchy did thousands of years ago to secure their own power.Even if he vehemently was against the death penalty, realism and pragmatic decisions would outweigh any ideal when it comes to changing the world, and so i understand the hypocrisy on his part. Another guy was Genghis Khan. The guy actually was a timid and shy person, but because of the several events that occurred in his life, he was forced to adapt and become cruel and ruthless. And even then, he chose the path of peace, just wanting to live with his family and tend to his farm animals, but then life wouldn't have that. And because of that, the great Genghis Khan was born. Funnily enough, he was the first guy to enforce some kind of meritocracy in the army, letting collecting the loot and distributing the loot equally to his men, but would then give more to those who fought more courageously in the battlefield. He gave positions not based on any sort of political calculation or blood ties, but rather through merit and merit alone. He was also pretty liberal for his time, and was pretty much tolerant to religion, sexuality and beliefs, as long as they didn't cause any trouble. He killed a lot of people, but who didn't at the time? And he mostly killed those who turned against him, and he made sure no one lived so the other cities hearing of his conquest would surrender without a fight : classical psychological warfare. There are a lot more historic figures deem evil just because they killed people, but ignore their great contributions to their society and our society today. People try to search the truly peaceful person who ruled peacefully, but they couldn't find one, because they were killed of by their competition. Gandhi is an exception, because he used his way of peace as a weapon, and not simply being peaceful for the sake of being peaceful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clausewitz on Feb 9, 2019 11:48:11 GMT
Too hold it simple it's like Nietzsche said "there are no facts, only interpretations".
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2019 16:28:18 GMT
Here's a comment i read about Robespierre : You make good points about Robespierre's arrogance, but could do a better job with your historical scholarship. Revolutions are fundamentally violent; you cannot value the lives of the aristocratic ruling class ended in quick brutality over the millions of people they oppressed under the ancien regime's centuries-plus, slow motion reign of terror. There are many questions you do not address. Some are below. What about Robespierre's defense of the poor and underprivileged as a lawyer in Arras? What about his name "the incorruptible?" What about his own prohibition of himself and other National Assembly members from joining the new Legislative Assembly, in order to yield power to others? What about Louis XVI, who betrayed France in order to flee to imperial Austria and wage war against his people to return to absolute tyranny? What about Mirabeau's secret treason? What about the Prussian armies who might have descended upon Paris in "military-style execution?" What about Marie Antoinette giving away French troop movements to imperial Austria while she was a rich and privileged constitutional queen of France? Lastly, what about the oppression of the ancien regime, the millions who paid oppressive taxes, lived bread loaf to bread loaf, while the rich lived it up, the peasants who fought the wars of Europe's feuding families and gave every last drop of blood for their frivolous pursuits? This comment was from this article : www.city-journal.org/html/why-robespierre-chose-terror-12935.htmlAnyway, Robespierre remembered as simply an evil guy who killed people is just plain injustice to Robespierre's name. He was a great man ruined by the propaganda of the people who actually caused his death, his own allies. It doesn't help that reading all about the truth surrounding Robespierre,or atleast to have a wider perspective of who he truly was,is a hassle. |
|
|
|
Post by Iron Duke on Feb 10, 2019 17:02:04 GMT
For those who dare, there exists a thought provoking revisionist documentary about history's greatest bogeyman (in the west's eyes, at least): thegreateststorynevertold.tv/ |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2019 2:35:55 GMT
For those who dare, there exists a thought provoking revisionist documentary about history's greatest bogeyman (in the west's eyes, at least): thegreateststorynevertold.tv/Hitler, in my definition, is still a great man. He changed the history of Europe, and he had the balls to do what he did. He pretty much embodied the spirit of Germany at the time, the hatred and anger of the masses because of their humiliation at the Treaty of Versailles. Although i'd say that he would have been a greater man if he didn't focus his hatred on the Jews in general, but rather on the Jewish bankers(or the bankers in general who had so added to the bankruptcy of Germany at the time) and the injustice that had befallen them simply because they were in the losing side of WW1. He became more deluded during the later years of the war, along with Paranoia and distrust of his best generals, ultimately cost them the war. Still a great figure, not the most moral or just, but still made enough change to change the future of humanity. |
|
|
|
Post by Hobo Joe on Feb 12, 2019 1:35:12 GMT
For those who dare, there exists a thought provoking revisionist documentary about history's greatest bogeyman (in the west's eyes, at least): thegreateststorynevertold.tv/Hitler, in my definition, is still a great man. He changed the history of Europe, and he had the balls to do what he did. He pretty much embodied the spirit of Germany at the time, the hatred and anger of the masses because of their humiliation at the Treaty of Versailles. Although i'd say that he would have been a greater man if he didn't focus his hatred on the Jews in general, but rather on the Jewish bankers(or the bankers in general who had so added to the bankruptcy of Germany at the time)ย and the injustice that had befallen them simply because they were in the losing side of WW1. He became more deluded during the later years of the war, along with Paranoia and distrust of his best generals, ultimately cost them the war. Still a great figure, not the most moral or just, but still made enough change to change the future of humanity. Not doing too much to hide your power level there |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2019 4:54:22 GMT
Hitler, in my definition, is still a great man. He changed the history of Europe, and he had the balls to do what he did. He pretty much embodied the spirit of Germany at the time, the hatred and anger of the masses because of their humiliation at the Treaty of Versailles. Although i'd say that he would have been a greater man if he didn't focus his hatred on the Jews in general, but rather on the Jewish bankers(or the bankers in general who had so added to the bankruptcy of Germany at the time) and the injustice that had befallen them simply because they were in the losing side of WW1. He became more deluded during the later years of the war, along with Paranoia and distrust of his best generals, ultimately cost them the war. Still a great figure, not the most moral or just, but still made enough change to change the future of humanity. Not doing too much to hide your power level there My power level is over 9000 |
|
|
|
Post by Iron Duke on Feb 14, 2019 13:53:36 GMT
For those who dare, there exists a thought provoking revisionist documentary about history's greatest bogeyman (in the west's eyes, at least): thegreateststorynevertold.tv/Hitler, in my definition, is still a great man. He changed the history of Europe, and he had the balls to do what he did. He pretty much embodied the spirit of Germany at the time, the hatred and anger of the masses because of their humiliation at the Treaty of Versailles. Although i'd say that he would have been a greater man if he didn't focus his hatred on the Jews in general, but rather on the Jewish bankers(or the bankers in general who had so added to the bankruptcy of Germany at the time) and the injustice that had befallen them simply because they were in the losing side of WW1. He became more deluded during the later years of the war, along with Paranoia and distrust of his best generals, ultimately cost them the war. Still a great figure, not the most moral or just, but still made enough change to change the future of humanity. I do wonder how things would've turned out if Israel had existed at that time. With somewhere for the Jews to go/be sent to events may have taken a very different turn. |
|
|
|
Post by Cyrus the Great on Feb 14, 2019 20:04:37 GMT
First thought when seeing this thread. Ivan the Terrible.
|
|
