I can't believe anyone would actually have that Kennedy as his favourite historical personality.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I can't believe anyone would actually have that Kennedy as his favourite historical personality.
Gag. I'm tired of reading about all these people whose quest for self-aggrandizement led to the slaughter of millions.
My list (in chronological order)
Aristophanes - the father of comedy and his take on the Peloponnesian wars and contemporary athenian culture is--in its own way--just as illuminating as Thucydides, and much more entertaining.
Pliny the Elder - A fascinating font of information about a distant time--far more interesting to me than the chronicle of the Emperors.
Empress Theodora - From a nobody (rumored even to be a prostitute) to the wife of the most powerful man in the world, and a dominant player in the poltics of the court as well.
Eleanor of Acquitaine - What a life for a woman of that time to lead! Having her own marriage annulled so she could marry another king, going on the Crusades. Then there's that whole Court of Love thing.
Pedro of Castile - An oddball choice, but I found his love of the Moorish culture and (at least for the time) religious tolerance interesting. Had he not been driven from the throne, perhaps Spain would have evolved in a different direction. A controversial figure in his own time, and a failed king, but an interesting person.
Galileo - A man who's observations of the natural world led to theories that scandalized the society of his time.
William Shakespeare - People continue to try to prove that he wasn't really the guy who wrote arguably the most famous body of literary work in history. That makes him pretty interesting in my book.
Christina of Sweden - Another woman who made her own choices against convention and obligations. An eccentric and unusual person.
Charles Darwin - As with Galileo, a man who's observations of the natural world led to theories that scandalized the society of his time.
Oscar Wilde - Gives shakespeare a run for the money in the quotability department. I think he'd be the most interesting dinner guest you could possibly have, though he'd be a bit intimidating.
My list (in chronological order)
Aristophanes - the father of comedy and his take on the Peloponnesian wars and contemporary athenian culture is--in its own way--just as illuminating as Thucydides, and much more entertaining.
Pliny the Elder - A fascinating font of information about a distant time--far more interesting to me than the chronicle of the Emperors.
Empress Theodora - From a nobody (rumored even to be a prostitute) to the wife of the most powerful man in the world, and a dominant player in the poltics of the court as well.
Eleanor of Acquitaine - What a life for a woman of that time to lead! Having her own marriage annulled so she could marry another king, going on the Crusades. Then there's that whole Court of Love thing.
Pedro of Castile - An oddball choice, but I found his love of the Moorish culture and (at least for the time) religious tolerance interesting. Had he not been driven from the throne, perhaps Spain would have evolved in a different direction. A controversial figure in his own time, and a failed king, but an interesting person.
Galileo - A man who's observations of the natural world led to theories that scandalized the society of his time.
William Shakespeare - People continue to try to prove that he wasn't really the guy who wrote arguably the most famous body of literary work in history. That makes him pretty interesting in my book.
Christina of Sweden - Another woman who made her own choices against convention and obligations. An eccentric and unusual person.
Charles Darwin - As with Galileo, a man who's observations of the natural world led to theories that scandalized the society of his time.
Oscar Wilde - Gives shakespeare a run for the money in the quotability department. I think he'd be the most interesting dinner guest you could possibly have, though he'd be a bit intimidating.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara. He believed in his cause, fought, and in the end died for it, never stopping because of either success or failure, having met both during his life. To many he was a hero, to others, just a troublemaker, a rebel, and as such he was killed, but as a hero he is remembered. Not by everyone, of course, but still.
There are many, but one who few give recognition and who isn't any kind of great statesman is Scharnhorst.
He was brilliant, certainly a military officer who was a great scholar and also an administrator and "doer". He founded the Militarische Gesellschaft in Berlin and was paramount in the reforms of the then rather bad Prussian Army, into the thing we now associate with the Prussian army.
At the age of 51 he participated in the battle of Auerstedt. Being away from combat for a long time he behaved well. When the flank he was (having no command) at was retreating (the battle was lost) he took command of it, saw to that one of the commanders (a prussian prince IIRC) got a horse so that he could get away. Picked up a musket, became wounded, acted by example, lead the retreat in a good way.
Then back to the Academy, reforming the military. An outstanding general indeed.
He was brilliant, certainly a military officer who was a great scholar and also an administrator and "doer". He founded the Militarische Gesellschaft in Berlin and was paramount in the reforms of the then rather bad Prussian Army, into the thing we now associate with the Prussian army.
At the age of 51 he participated in the battle of Auerstedt. Being away from combat for a long time he behaved well. When the flank he was (having no command) at was retreating (the battle was lost) he took command of it, saw to that one of the commanders (a prussian prince IIRC) got a horse so that he could get away. Picked up a musket, became wounded, acted by example, lead the retreat in a good way.
Then back to the Academy, reforming the military. An outstanding general indeed.
Charles XII, who thought he could win a prolongued war with Russia. 
Also all of the Ottoman Sultans interest me, but Suleiman the Lawgiver is the one I find the most interesting.
Also all of the Ottoman Sultans interest me, but Suleiman the Lawgiver is the one I find the most interesting.
Oliver Cromwell, born in 1599, died in 1658, Septmeber, founded the New Model Army, smashed Ireland, set up the Commonwealth and beat the Dutch at sea in 1653!
Giuseppe Garibaldi.
A great adventurer and a brave warrior and leader. He had in fact one of the most adventurous lives one could ever dream of. Many people would die for him, and he himself would die for his idea of freedom. He fought both in Europe and South America (he's called the Hero of the Two Worlds), in Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil and Italy. He fought for the liberty of Rome against the French in 1848. He fought in two indipendence wars, and again he tried to free Rome. He unified Italy with only 1000 volunteers, the Red Shirts. Eventually he fought the Prussians in France in 1870, and his army was never beaten. He fought against Prussians, Austrians, French, Spanish, Neapolitans and even Italian army, often without any other support than that of its own followers. Sometimes he won, sometimes he lost, yet he always returned. He was shot and got hurt sometimes, but he never gave up the fight.
In fact many consider him as the moral leader of all the liberals, nationalists and revolutionaries of all the 19th century. He was some kind of Victorian-age Che Guevara.
A great adventurer and a brave warrior and leader. He had in fact one of the most adventurous lives one could ever dream of. Many people would die for him, and he himself would die for his idea of freedom. He fought both in Europe and South America (he's called the Hero of the Two Worlds), in Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil and Italy. He fought for the liberty of Rome against the French in 1848. He fought in two indipendence wars, and again he tried to free Rome. He unified Italy with only 1000 volunteers, the Red Shirts. Eventually he fought the Prussians in France in 1870, and his army was never beaten. He fought against Prussians, Austrians, French, Spanish, Neapolitans and even Italian army, often without any other support than that of its own followers. Sometimes he won, sometimes he lost, yet he always returned. He was shot and got hurt sometimes, but he never gave up the fight.
In fact many consider him as the moral leader of all the liberals, nationalists and revolutionaries of all the 19th century. He was some kind of Victorian-age Che Guevara.
Last edited:
Perhaps Kim Ill Sung,
In 1948 he founded North Korea. He was evil, and a despot, and I hate him, yet some what am attracted to his story.
Also Ronald Awesome Reagan, the greatest beside FDR and George Washington.
In 1948 he founded North Korea. He was evil, and a despot, and I hate him, yet some what am attracted to his story.
Also Ronald Awesome Reagan, the greatest beside FDR and George Washington.
Nat Turner
Nat Turner - led a rebellion in 1830 against slavery in Southern Virginia. It was the first step in the abolition of slavery because slave owners could no longer fool themselves that what they were doing was acceptable to the slaves.
Nat Turner - led a rebellion in 1830 against slavery in Southern Virginia. It was the first step in the abolition of slavery because slave owners could no longer fool themselves that what they were doing was acceptable to the slaves.
I'm not so sure about that. I think Nat Turner was just a bad 'un. His Master probably spared the rod and spoiled the slave. That's what led him to murder innocent people, women and children among them.
I'd pick John Brown over Crazy Nat Turner any day.
I've only read 5 pages on him, but as of the moment it's a battle between Jose Ferres and Cicero
Baruch Spinoza, Hypatia of Alexandria, Robert E, Lee. Beautiful minds all even if one can only infer that by the few details of her life and death in the case of Hypatia.
Heinz Guderian as far as historical military personalities are concerned. To me, he has that mix of being aggressive and being sensible that I really find appealing; not overpowering in one area. He really is a gentlemen that I wouldn't mind having a cup of coffee with or fight under for that matter
Political personalities, Abraham Lincoln, even though some of my fellow Southerners are quite surprised with that (I could really care less.) Even though I didn't go through the tragic events he went through in his early life, having been through periods of deep despair, I can really connect with Lincoln on that level. His philosophy on life really appeals to me for some reason. While there are a few areas of politics I don't necessairly agree with, I like the intent and thinking behind them; one that resembles mine I think.
Political personalities, Abraham Lincoln, even though some of my fellow Southerners are quite surprised with that (I could really care less.) Even though I didn't go through the tragic events he went through in his early life, having been through periods of deep despair, I can really connect with Lincoln on that level. His philosophy on life really appeals to me for some reason. While there are a few areas of politics I don't necessairly agree with, I like the intent and thinking behind them; one that resembles mine I think.
One of them would be Sir Edmund Hillary. He just got voted the greatest living New Zealand, even though he died 18 months ago.
There are plenty of people who have accomplished far flashier things, but he was an example of a down-to-earth person who went out and succeeded at some pretty impressive things, and still stayed a down-to-earth person. I think he was the first one person to have been to all of the highest, northenmost and southernmost points on Earth. But the truly great part is that he then went and spent his time getting schools, hospitals and landing strips built in the Himalayas, joining in with hammer and nails himself. He was quite a remarkable person, all the more so for still seeming like a person and not some deity above us mere mortals and anything we could hope to accomplish.
There are plenty of people who have accomplished far flashier things, but he was an example of a down-to-earth person who went out and succeeded at some pretty impressive things, and still stayed a down-to-earth person. I think he was the first one person to have been to all of the highest, northenmost and southernmost points on Earth. But the truly great part is that he then went and spent his time getting schools, hospitals and landing strips built in the Himalayas, joining in with hammer and nails himself. He was quite a remarkable person, all the more so for still seeming like a person and not some deity above us mere mortals and anything we could hope to accomplish.
Genghis Khan, without a doubt.
Came from a forgotten, backwards corner of the world, lost his status, his clan and his wife, was enslaved and put through terrible hardships, yet turned it around and during that one lifetime began the conquest that would topple emperors, lay ancient civilizations to waste, destroy the lives of millions and ultimately create the greatest empire of all history.
A terrible character in many ways, but amazing nonetheless.
Came from a forgotten, backwards corner of the world, lost his status, his clan and his wife, was enslaved and put through terrible hardships, yet turned it around and during that one lifetime began the conquest that would topple emperors, lay ancient civilizations to waste, destroy the lives of millions and ultimately create the greatest empire of all history.
A terrible character in many ways, but amazing nonetheless.
I think that there are two kinds of favourites historical personalities:
1) Those that you love to read about, analyze, see movies about them, etc., even when some of them were actually cruel and unhuman.
2) Those that you really feel sympathetic with, people that has positive values and that you would love to be like them, or close, even when their life could be a little boring, at least compared to people in 1)
For 1) I have, in no particular order: Philip II, Charles V, Bismarck, Stalin, Hitler, Napoleon, Franco, Alexander the Great, Iulius Caesar, Zukhov.
For 2) I have: Aristotle, Kant, Voltaire, Leonardo, Galileo, Darwin, Russell, Einstein, Roosevelt.
1) Those that you love to read about, analyze, see movies about them, etc., even when some of them were actually cruel and unhuman.
2) Those that you really feel sympathetic with, people that has positive values and that you would love to be like them, or close, even when their life could be a little boring, at least compared to people in 1)
For 1) I have, in no particular order: Philip II, Charles V, Bismarck, Stalin, Hitler, Napoleon, Franco, Alexander the Great, Iulius Caesar, Zukhov.
For 2) I have: Aristotle, Kant, Voltaire, Leonardo, Galileo, Darwin, Russell, Einstein, Roosevelt.
Last edited:
Albert Göring, Paul von Hindenburg, Fieldmarschal Haig, Wladimir Lenin, Otto von Bismarck, Emperor Charles/Karel/Karl/Carlos V.
Could you explain why they are your most favourite ones ? That would make your post more interesting to read for people.
Adam Smith and David Ricardo: I am a bit suprised neither of these men have been mentioned; though admittedly I do not know much about their personal lives. Nontheless:
I enjoy living a comfortable life (I am not be able to fathom a life where I could not access internet forum discussions online!). More than that I enjoy having a standard of living that is approximately 1000x greater (materially speaking) than what most of human history has enjoyed. The astronomical increase in wealth, generated by the ideas of specialization of labor and comparative advantage laid the foundation for liberal human rights and advanced technology; to attempt to list everything else would be an exercise in futility.
My apologia for these men certainly does not do them justice. However, I thought someone should at least mention them (where are the economics students?). Also maybe I am confusing 'favourite historical personality' with 'most significant impact'. Though I would certainly want to meet these men who formulated such groundbreaking ideas.
I enjoy living a comfortable life (I am not be able to fathom a life where I could not access internet forum discussions online!). More than that I enjoy having a standard of living that is approximately 1000x greater (materially speaking) than what most of human history has enjoyed. The astronomical increase in wealth, generated by the ideas of specialization of labor and comparative advantage laid the foundation for liberal human rights and advanced technology; to attempt to list everything else would be an exercise in futility.
My apologia for these men certainly does not do them justice. However, I thought someone should at least mention them (where are the economics students?). Also maybe I am confusing 'favourite historical personality' with 'most significant impact'. Though I would certainly want to meet these men who formulated such groundbreaking ideas.
Last edited: