Political Crossfire Forums

[Poon]

thundertaker wrote: .locke. wrote: my mistake. :( i shouldve researched (outside of history class) that a little more.. and wikipedia can be edited?? by anyone? i didnt know that. so, thank you.

No problem. :wink: Wikipedia is useful to use as a research tool though, historical articles like this are usually factually accurate or at least written in good faith, and it usually gives a decent grounding in any particular topic. It also provides points and useful links to use for further research, but you will get shot down in flames for trying to cite it as a source by the person opposing you in an argument on an internet forum, purely because it can be edited by anyone at any time.

But it is nice to see kids taking an interest in history though. I hope you will continue to contribute in the history section, and I apologise if I came accross as a little bit rude. I do have an unfortunate tendancy to sound pompous and arrogant when I believe I'm right..... :lol: Question for anyone with an answer... who reviews the validity of the information on Wikipedia? Who looks at the credentials of the Authors of the articles on Wikipedia? What is the process of filtering out bad information from the good on that site?

[Poon]

Wallower wrote: Alexander the Great took over everything from. Sure he died young but he has made the biggest impacted on the world. The Military shaves their hair. Who came up with that Alexander the Great. In the future everyone will remember Alexander the Great. Took over everything??!
Ok, I give him credit for occupying almost all of Europe and basically bringing in all the Persians into his fold. But, thats about it...

Oooh, shaving your head in the Military, what an innovation!!


Edit: Actually, doing a bit of research, Alexander's Empire doesn't include much of Europe, he took over mostly Persian Territory:



Again I'm using Wikipedia as a source. But I'm sure these historical maps are widely used.

Alexander's Empire was a large unified political entity nonetheless. But it was short-lived, and there were times when Persian unity threatened the peace in much of Western Europe.

[canucklehead]

I believe that it is very difficult to make a selection here. See, there are many positions that a country can be in. They can either be at war, or peace, they can have a bad economic situation or a good one and so on. There are those who are good at guiding a country through a war. Case in point, Winston Churchill, he was able to lead the British people through an uneasy time and keep their spirits up. But, in 1945 when the war ended the people felt that he wasn't the best person to lead them into the rebuilding on Britain and he was voted out. Churchill was a great leader in terms of keeping the spirit of the people high during the war, but did he necessarily have the knowhow to lead the country out of the war?

Let's take another example. Say we have a leader who has been effective in creating a stable economy, good social programs etc. But, would he necessarily be the right person to lead his/her people through a war? I think the word 'leader' is open to interpretation in many different ways.

[Kt]

superskippy wrote: Uhh Crazyhorse? Why?
Crazyhorse is the f***ing best, bravery, strength, tactical genius, standing up for what's right, a superb leader the people respected... No USA presidents have come close.

[Melcar]

TwinkieDP wrote: Wallower wrote: Alexander the Great took over everything from. Sure he died young but he has made the biggest impacted on the world. The Military shaves their hair. Who came up with that Alexander the Great. In the future everyone will remember Alexander the Great. Took over everything??!
Ok, I give him credit for occupying almost all of Europe and basically bringing in all the Persians into his fold. But, thats about it...

Oooh, shaving your head in the Military, what an innovation!!


Edit: Actually, doing a bit of research, Alexander's Empire doesn't include much of Europe, he took over mostly Persian Territory:



Again I'm using Wikipedia as a source. But I'm sure these historical maps are widely used.

Alexander's Empire was a large unified political entity nonetheless. But it was short-lived, and there were times when Persian unity threatened the peace in much of Western Europe.

I agree. Alexander is rather overrated. He did accomplish much in a rather short period of time and he did conquer the *known* world of the time. However, you have to remember that his biggest enemy was the Persian Empire which controlled (mostly indirectly and through vassal states) most of that same known world, so once it fell everything else was more or less a walk in the park. Most of the subjugated people of the old Persian Empire did not mount much of a resistance against him; it's only until he reached the edges of the old Empire that he started to have problems and face fierce resistance. However, we must not forget the influence his actions had on many cultures.

[.locke.]

Helena` wrote: superskippy wrote: Uhh Crazyhorse? Why?
Crazyhorse is the f***ing best, bravery, strength, tactical genius, standing up for what's right, a superb leader the people respected... No USA presidents have come close.

Abraham Lincon, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Need think of more?

Genghis Khan was the best "wartime" leader of his people throughout all of history. he conquered an area from Pacific ocean to the Caspian sea. and his sons and grandsons Conquered even more. all the way too Jeruselam, in the east, moscow in the north, and the pacific in the west and amost all of India in the South. mnay of the boundries are highly debated, but even if you take away a huge chunk of land, its still GIGANTIC.

[Melcar]

.locke. wrote: Genghis Khan was the best "wartime" leader of his people throughout all of history. he conquered an area from Pacific ocean to the Caspian sea. and his sons and grandsons Conquered even more. all the way too Jeruselam, in the east, moscow in the north, and the pacific in the west and amost all of India in the South. mnay of the boundries are highly debated, but even if you take away a huge chunk of land, its still GIGANTIC.

And he wasn't half bad when it came to politics and diplomacy either.

[Wallower]

TwinkieDP wrote: Wallower wrote: Alexander the Great took over everything from. Sure he died young but he has made the biggest impacted on the world. The Military shaves their hair. Who came up with that Alexander the Great. In the future everyone will remember Alexander the Great. Took over everything??!
Ok, I give him credit for occupying almost all of Europe and basically bringing in all the Persians into his fold. But, thats about it...

Oooh, shaving your head in the Military, what an innovation!!


Edit: Actually, doing a bit of research, Alexander's Empire doesn't include much of Europe, he took over mostly Persian Territory:



Again I'm using Wikipedia as a source. But I'm sure these historical maps are widely used.

Alexander's Empire was a large unified political entity nonetheless. But it was short-lived, and there were times when Persian unity threatened the peace in much of Western Europe.


Yes shaving your hair in combat is a big innovation . Because if you have long hair and are in hand-to-hand combat your hair is where the person you are fighting will go. Because you cant move well, your range of fighting is largey reduced. If you have really know hair it's better they can't pull it.

[Pzatchok]

Actually the shaving of hair was for the cleanlinness factor. No place for bugs to hide.

Genghis Khan army was so good because it lived. He instituted the law that all solders must drink tea. How do you get tea? You boil water thus killing the bad bugs. His army was documented as having the lowest instance of disease in all history untill that point. He also instituted a system of storage for each village so that his soldiers alwasy had food.
Khan created a superiour form of bureaucracy not just a better army.

[bonjoey]

Abraham Lincoln
He was eloquent to a historic degree.
He was determined to keep the union together.
He had the Civil War (is war really civil), to
contend with.
He had incompetent Generals.
It's a wonder the South didn't win. They were
like the Chicago Cubs; they had talent but they
just couldn't win!

Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with the Berlin
wall coming down! Rock and roll music had more
to do with it than Reagan. Reagan was a schlameil!

FDR would be a good choice also. But Lincoln had
an affair with the word. He was a common, quiet, giant!

bonjoey

[Poon]

No offence to Americans and other members of Anglo heritage, but threads like these are almost always used to harp about the greatness of Western Civilization, how powerful the Roman/Greek were etc etc... Hate to burst your bubble, but Western civilization has only gained a lead in the last few hundred years.

People tend to ignore any history having to do with the Persians, the Arabs, Mongols, Hindu, Chinese, and the Egyptians. And lets not forget the Bablyonian/Sumerian civilizations, who were considered to be one of the oldest. Even in American history books taught to High School students they at least mention the Fertile Cresent of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers that spawned such cultures.

At one time the Arabs advanced mathematics further than any other cultures have done. The fact that everyone continue to use Arabic numerals in everyday life is proof of this. How come we are not using Greek, Hindu or Chinese numerals? Roman numerals were so clumsy for calculations that they were not even worth mentioning. While Europe was wallowing in the Dark/Medieval Ages the Arabs continue to remain as advanced as ever.

Comparing the Romans to other civilizations, you see that Hindu, Chinese and Persian cultures continuing as unified political entities, yet Europe is fragmented into dozens of states.

[DSwain]

TwinkieDP wrote: No offence to Americans and other members of Anglo heritage, but threads like these are almost always used to harp about the greatness of Western Civilization, how powerful the Roman/Greek were etc etc... Hate to burst your bubble, but Western civilization has only gained a lead in the last few hundred years.

People tend to ignore any history having to do with the Persians, the Arabs, Mongols, Hindu, Chinese, and the Egyptians. And lets not forget the Bablyonian/Sumerian civilizations, who were considered to be one of the oldest. Even in American history books taught to High School students they at least mention the Fertile Cresent of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers that spawned such cultures.

At one time the Arabs advanced mathematics further than any other cultures have done. The fact that everyone continue to use Arabic numerals in everyday life is proof of this. How come we are not using Greek, Hindu or Chinese numerals? Roman numerals were so clumsy for calculations that they were not even worth mentioning. While Europe was wallowing in the Dark/Medieval Ages the Arabs continue to remain as advanced as ever.

Comparing the Romans to other civilizations, you see that Hindu, Chinese and Persian cultures continuing as unified political entities, yet Europe is fragmented into dozens of states.

To give the thread author credit, there is an Other option which many people have taken advantage of and have posted their suggestions and reasoning; that's what has made this such an interesting thread.

[Poon]

Another thing about the Medieval Ages and the subsequent Age of Englightenment. Many western scholars can't even agree amongst themselves where one ends and where the next age begins. Historical evidence has shown that even during the European Age of Englightenment there were signs of decay among the various kingdoms that existed, military conflicts, corruption of the church, in some areas irrational thought and superstitions persisted and worsened.

Enlightenment thinkers looked back towards the Greek Classics to reinvigorate scientific and philosophical thought. What many people don't tell you is that much the Greek mathematical classics were translated from Arabic and brought back into the Byzantine pool of knowledge. Before the European Age of REason/Elightenment the Islamic nations of the time also looked into Greek Classics. The Arabs built upon previous knowlege advanced mathmatics into such fields as Spherical Trigonometry, Al-Gebra, and the Concept of "zero" was first developed by the Arabs.

[Timur The Lame]

For rugged endurance, genius, and sheer tenacity from his early teens to regain his empire Akbar the Great

For both leading his Empire to it’s pinnacle of power and setting the trend for it’s decline through his ever increasing hubris, Suleiman the Magnificent

For being a master diplomat (much more lasting then his uncle’s soldiering skills), Augustus

For leading a bunch of backward desert tribals locked into their petty feuds into an aggressive campaign that would unify them and expand their influence from Morocco to Indonesia, Mohammad

For leading his empire and nation to their zenith, Li Shì Mín

And for being the first of his kind, Sargon of Akkad.

To the OP: Learn you history.

[Wyatt Earp]

bonjoey wrote: Abraham Lincoln
He was eloquent to a historic degree.
He was determined to keep the union together.
He had the Civil War (is war really civil), to
contend with.
He had incompetent Generals.
It's a wonder the South didn't win. They were
like the Chicago Cubs; they had talent but they
just couldn't win!

Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with the Berlin
wall coming down! Rock and roll music had more
to do with it than Reagan. Reagan was a schlameil!

FDR would be a good choice also. But Lincoln had
an affair with the word. He was a common, quiet, giant!

bonjoey

Lincoln wanted accordingly to his papers wanted separation, he wanted to ship all the African American's to pananma, The Cubs never had any talent, with the exception of Monday, Fergonson, Bank's and Kingmon.

Reagan won WWIII, deny it all you must, but winners get to write history.

FDR, I blame him for his buddy buddy with Stalin and giving away Poland and all the other satellite USSR states.

The Greatest US president of course would be: Gerald Ford

[DSwain]

Timur The Lame wrote: For rugged endurance, genius, and sheer tenacity from his early teens to regain his empire Akbar the Great

For both leading his Empire to it’s pinnacle of power and setting the trend for it’s decline through his ever increasing hubris, Suleiman the Magnificent

For being a master diplomat (much more lasting then his uncle’s soldiering skills), Augustus

For leading a bunch of backward desert tribals locked into their petty feuds into an aggressive campaign that would unify them and expand their influence from Morocco to Indonesia, Mohammad

For leading his empire and nation to their zenith, Li Shì Mín

And for being the first of his kind, Sargon of Akkad.

To the OP: Learn you history.

The thread has allowed posters to posit all sorts of ideas as to their opinion of best leader. It's been interesting and refreshsing to read. I say kudos to the thread author and a little less attitude from everyone else. If we all spent all of our time drawing attention to perceptions of intellectual inadequacy on the part of our fellow posters - poor spelling, poor grammar, poor comprehension - we'd never have the time to debate each other on the issues.

[Poon]

DSwain wrote:
The thread has allowed posters to posit all sorts of ideas as to their opinion of best leader. It's been interesting and refreshsing to read. I say kudos to the thread author and a little less attitude from everyone else. If we all spent all of our time drawing attention to perceptions of intellectual inadequacy on the part of our fellow posters - poor spelling, poor grammar, poor comprehension - we'd never have the time to debate each other on the issues. What Issues? This is suppose to be a History thread. Unless, we're talking about issues of historical accuracy. We present what we've read and learned, then others are asked to comment.

I also have yet to read any posts criticizing spelling, grammar or comprehension.

[Gatz Nieblas]

Twice vetoing the McNaughty tariff, slashing tax rates down to 25% from the WW1 levels of 77%, implementing market initiatives that led to 1% unemployment in 1926 and 38% of the world's production by 1929, Calvin Coolidge, if not the greatest world leader, is certainly high up on the list for being a man of principle. He claimed to be a pro-free market president and implemented numerous programs to foster economic growth, left the government out of the business of Americans, supported free trade, and promoted limiting the government. He claimed to believe in a balanced budget and believed it was morally wrong to be wastefully generous with the taxpayer's money. Following through with his promise, he balanced the budget and was the first and only president to veto more legislation than signed into law by a president.

[DSwain]

TwinkieDP wrote: DSwain wrote:
The thread has allowed posters to posit all sorts of ideas as to their opinion of best leader. It's been interesting and refreshsing to read. I say kudos to the thread author and a little less attitude from everyone else. If we all spent all of our time drawing attention to perceptions of intellectual inadequacy on the part of our fellow posters - poor spelling, poor grammar, poor comprehension - we'd never have the time to debate each other on the issues. What Issues? This is suppose to be a History thread. Unless, we're talking about issues of historical accuracy. We present what we've read and learned, then others are asked to comment.

I also have yet to read any posts criticizing spelling, grammar or comprehension.

That was my point. I have read numerous posts with poor spelling, poor grammar and poor comprehension. I have never drawn attention to these failings as I think it's bad form and counter-productive to interesting debate on what is an excellent forum with some very intelligent people, some of whom may not be especially comfortable with some of the rules of English. I think those who try to belittle their fellow posters on the basis of a false idea of superior intellect are mistaken.

This has been an interesting thread. The OP merely listed possible candidates that he'd initially considered to be possible - he also offered the 'Other' option. We could do with a little less snobbery in this thread and fewer attacks on the OP. I'm perfectly happy to admit that Akbar the Great doesn't feature in my day-to-day consciousness; I've learnt a little from this thread. Twinkie, this is a history thread and so I see no problem in learning a little here. Let's just avoid the hostility.

[Timur The Lame]

DSwain wrote:
The thread has allowed posters to posit all sorts of ideas as to their opinion of best leader. It's been interesting and refreshsing to read. I say kudos to the thread author and a little less attitude from everyone else. If we all spent all of our time drawing attention to perceptions of intellectual inadequacy on the part of our fellow posters - poor spelling, poor grammar, poor comprehension - we'd never have the time to debate each other on the issues.

Sorry that I get annoyed with ethnocentrism (and idiocy for putting contemporary leaders up who's full wight will not be felt in some time). :roll:

I don't criticize grammar or other technicalities of writing (being dyslexic myself I make more then my fair share of them) but I really just can't stand it when people only pay attention to the west when it comes to history. It show contempt for other cultures, and leads to situations that we are currently in in the middle east. If we were a bit more culturally sensitive (as in not degrading people because of their beliefs as some soldiers have done in Iraq) we might have a little less terrorism.