Throughout history there are people who are reguarded as heros and others who are viewed obviously as villains... Example: Abraham Lincoln= Hero, Adolf Hitler = Villain.
But then there are other people in history whos records are in dispute, what would you consider these people? Heroes or Villains?
Napoleon Bonaparte
Robert E. Lee
Karl Marx
Vladimir Lenin
Ho Chi Mihn
Isoroku Yamamoto
Jack Kavorkian
to name a few...
Best Thread Ever!
"I think StCyril deserves a Highfive for getting two threads made about him and half the BBS pissed off over nothing!" - Seeinthedark
At 2/2/07 08:45 PM, StCyril wrote: Throughout history there are people who are reguarded as heros and others who are viewed obviously as villains... Example: Abraham Lincoln= Hero, Adolf Hitler = Villain.
You cannot label most historical figures as hero or villain. There are good and bad sides to each person, and to name one a hero or villain often leaves something out that is essential to the character of that being.
Additionally, you are trying to apply concrete ideas to abstract people. Opinions on every one of those people you listed fluxuate from good and bad and everywhere in between. Now, taking your people and putting them on a 1 to 10 scale (1 being evil, 10 being good):
Napoleon Bonaparte: 7. He stabilized a France on the verge of implosion, gave it direction, and entered the country into a new golden age. However, this golden age came at the expense of invading and conquering other sovereign countries of Europe.
Robert E. Lee: 8. Fighting a losing war from the start, Lee can only be considered "evil" in the idea that he put his home (Virginia) before his country (United States). However, he was not in favor of the spread of slavery, rather fighting to defend his home from what he saw as a flagrant violation of the Constitution. He was a man who had no vices, but tolerated vices in others. Altogether a good man, he remains one of America's most beloved generals.
Karl Marx: 5. This history professor turned philosopher is neither good nor bad, because he simply puts forth his theories about the state of humanity and his ideas on where it will go; this is not different than any other philosopher or any person, for that matter. He merely published his thoughts into comprehensive works (Das Kapital and the Manifesto). He never applied those ideas.
Vladmir Lenin: 6. While most people agree that the czars needed to go, Lenin's Bolsheviks were radical, far more than the moderate Mensheviks who set up the temporary government after the overthrow of the royal family. Their October Revolution was bloody and his application of the ideas of a "vanguard of the party" set up a dictatorship and style of rule that crippled one of the largest nations on the planet. The effects are still felt to this day in Russia. He was, however, nowhere near as bad as Stalin, and research shows that Lenin actually preferred the more moderate Trotsky to succeed him.
Ho Chi Minh: 6. He liberated his people from the remnants of imperialism, replacing foreign rule from France with local rule aided by Red China. He likely would have been better viewed if he allowed South Vietnam to go its own way, rather than attempt to unify the country under a single Communist regime. See: Korea.
Isoroku Yamamoto: 5. While he devised the strategy behind Pearl Harbor and other Japanese victories, he too had to follow the orders of Tojo and was, in the end, a tool of the Japanese military government. He performed to the best of his ability in service to his country, but he must have known that he was fighting a war he could not win. Killed shortly after Guadacanal in 1943, it is better that he never saw the destruction wrought on the land he fought his entire life for.
Jack Kevorkian: I refuse to make a judgement on this, because I feel that significant time has not passed where we can look back at the events concerning Dr. Kevorkian without dealing with the controversy. An adequate analysis should only take place when the story is finished. It's not.
At 2/2/07 09:16 PM, UWDarDar17 wrote:At 2/2/07 08:45 PM, StCyril wrote: Throughout history there are people who are reguarded as heros and others who are viewed obviously as villains... Example: Abraham Lincoln= Hero, Adolf Hitler = Villain.You cannot label most historical figures as hero or villain. There are good and bad sides to each person, and to name one a hero or villain often leaves something out that is essential to the character of that being.
Isoroku Yamamoto: 5. While he devised the strategy behind Pearl Harbor and other Japanese victories, he too had to follow the orders of Tojo and was, in the end, a tool of the Japanese military government. He performed to the best of his ability in service to his country, but he must have known that he was fighting a war he could not win. Killed shortly after Guadacanal in 1943, it is better that he never saw the destruction wrought on the land he fought his entire life for.
This is exactly what I was looking for, I agree with you in every aspect save one; I know you cannot label them one way or another, but the thing is, I AM LOOKING FOR OPINIONS, those are what I want... and honestly I think that Yamamoto deserves more credit then he gets... I view him as the Robert E. Lee of WW2... thus I have to give him equal marks.
Best Thread Ever!
"I think StCyril deserves a Highfive for getting two threads made about him and half the BBS pissed off over nothing!" - Seeinthedark
At 2/2/07 08:45 PM, StCyril wrote:
But then there are other people in history whos records are in dispute, what would you consider these people? Heroes or Villains?
Napoleon Bonaparte
For all my french pride I can't see trying to rule the world as a noble task.
Robert E. Lee
While slavery is just one of the issues that sparked the civil war and thus gives the instant idea of villiany I still see him as having been on the wrong side here. Men from north and south fought against their brothers for different beleifes so i can't give him the benifit of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Karl Marx
Just a philosopher. It's the people who tried to use his ultimatly flawed vision who did the real harm.
Vladimir Lenin
See above
Ho Chi Mihn
He became what he hated. unification cannot come at the cost of the peoples will.
Isoroku Yamamoto
Like the guy above said he was a tool. But he was a good leader and, excuse the term, an honorable man
Jack Kavorkian
Villian. He's made this too much about his own name to play the saintly healer
I have nothing against people who can use pot and lead a productive life. It's these sanctimonius hippies that make me wish I was a riot cop in the 60's
At 2/2/07 08:45 PM, StCyril wrote:
Napoleon Bonaparte
Villian. Paraded under the view of Republicanism and rights. Was a dictator.
Robert E. Lee
Honorable man, believed in the power of states, not in slavery. I believe he picked the wrong side.
Karl Marx
Philospher, even if his ideas are improbable.
Vladimir Lenin
Helped to install the basis for an Empire that would consume millions of lives. And his own attrocities.
Ho Chi Mihn
A leader that paraded under the views of freedom and equality, then became a military dictator.
Isoroku Yamamoto
Honorable in his country, yes. Militarily, not so much. Let his thoughs be controlled by useless traditions.
Jack Kavorkian
Madman.
Between the idea And the reality
Between the motion And the act, Falls the Shadow
An argument in Logic
At 2/2/07 08:45 PM, StCyril wrote:
This is exactly what I was looking for, I agree with you in every aspect save one; I know you cannot label them one way or another, but the thing is, I AM LOOKING FOR OPINIONS, those are what I want... and honestly I think that Yamamoto deserves more credit then he gets... I view him as the Robert E. Lee of WW2... thus I have to give him equal marks.
The problem with this is that you want opinions on what has already been pointed out is a biased and incorrect measure.
It's like saying:
G.W. Bush
Great President, or GREATEST President?
The problem is giving an answer to the question doesn't necessarily constitute that person's opinion, because the question itself is far too constricting.
But, c'est la vie, I'll play your game.......
Napoleon Bonaparte
Villain.
Robert E. Lee
Hero.
Karl Marx
Hero
Vladimir Lenin
Villain
Ho Chi Mihn
Villain
Isoroku Yamamoto
Hero.
Jack Kavorkian
Lunatic.
to name a few...
How about more disputed figures?
Alexander the Great
Gaius Julius Caesar
Imperator divi filius Caesar Augustus (ie, Emperor Augustus)
Hannibal
Cincinnatus
Brutus (guy who killed Caesar)
Odysseus
from the modern age:
Patton
FDR
Eisenhower
Pope John Paul II
Mao Zedong
Writing Forum Reviewer.
PM me for preferential Writing Forum review treatment.
See my NG page for a regularly updated list of works I will review.
At 2/2/07 10:25 PM, Imperator wrote:
How about more disputed figures?
Alexander the Great
Was more about building an empire than running it
Gaius Julius Caesar
Ditto
Imperator divi filius Caesar Augustus (ie, Emperor Augustus)
Sought stability for his people
Hannibal
Fought against a force that had grown too large for itself
Cincinnatus
If legend can be beleived he made it about the job and not himself
Brutus (guy who killed Caesar)
There are better ways to reform
Odysseus
fictious
I have nothing against people who can use pot and lead a productive life. It's these sanctimonius hippies that make me wish I was a riot cop in the 60's
At 2/2/07 08:45 PM, StCyril wrote: But then there are other people in history whos records are in dispute, what would you consider these people? Heroes or Villains?
Napoleon Bonaparte
He was a hero, people that he ruled were free.
Robert E. Lee
Hero, he realy hated slavery and is the usa's moast beloved general in history.
Karl Marx
Common, he diddnt intend any of the bad stuf others would do
Vladimir Lenin
Hero, it was stallin that killed his intended next in line to rule and srew up communism, blaim stallin.
Ho Chi Mihn
i donnu
Isoroku Yamamoto
Anti-hero
Jack Kavorkian
Who is he?
Sig made by azteca89
Napoleon Bonaparte
hmm your right about him but i think hes both villian angd hero but if you had to choose one it would be Villian Napoleon was a very adept military leader and politician. He manipulated his minor position in the French Army during the Revolution so he rapidly gained influence, and he eventually became the General of the Grande Armee
Napoleon was very smart militarily but prone to arrogance and cruelty. His Siberian campaign left his soldiers eating hunks of frozen raw meat from horses (some still alive-- the soldiers would slice off meat from the haunches of a moving horse in front of them...the horse would be too frozen to feel it) while he enjoyed three course meals from his personal baggage and food. Before battles he would leave candles on in his tent as to make his soldiers think he was planning--in actuallity he slept or read books
i think hes smart leader but his arrangonce to help people was his downfall
Vladmir Lenin: 6. While most people agree that the czars needed to go, Lenin's Bolsheviks were radical, far more than the moderate Mensheviks who set up the temporary government after the overthrow of the royal family. Their October Revolution was bloody and his application of the ideas of a "vanguard of the party" set up a dictatorship and style of rule that crippled one of the largest nations on the planet. The effects are still felt to this day in Russia. He was, however, nowhere near as bad as Stalin, and research shows that Lenin actually preferred the more moderate Trotsky to succeed him.
You know nothing adout communist politics do you? Trotsky was not a moderate (he was one of the most radical man in human history). The mensheviks were never in power (were Prince Georgy L'vov and Kerensky mensheviks? no, the mensheviks played no part in the revolution and were outnumdered and out voted by the bolsheviks, they were just a think tank). He did not "cipple the largest nation on the planet", that would be Khrushchev.
Ho Chi Minh: 6. He liberated his people from the remnants of imperialism, replacing foreign rule from France with local rule aided by Red China. He likely would have been better viewed if he allowed South Vietnam to go its own way, rather than attempt to unify the country under a single Communist regime. See: Korea.
He died before the war ended, read his last testinment here.
http://www.cpv.org.vn/details_e.asp?topic=14&
subtopic=99&leader_topic=42&id=BT2750373215
At 2/2/07 09:16 PM, UWDarDar17 wrote:
Isoroku Yamamoto: 5. While he devised the strategy behind Pearl Harbor and other Japanese victories, he too had to follow the orders of Tojo and was, in the end, a tool of the Japanese military government.
Technically, the inspiration for Pearl Harbour was Operation Judgement - the British attack on Taranto a year before, although that was more aimed at the port itself, hence only three Italian ships were hit, and two of those were operational again within six months. Notably, a Japanese observer was watching this (according to Timewatch, anyway), so he obviously took detailed notes with a few added suggestions.
Propaganda is to a Democracy what violence is to a Dictatorship
Never underestimate the significance of "significant."
NG Politics Discussion 101
At 2/3/07 10:06 AM, Animated-commie wrote: You know nothing adout communist politics do you?
I know some, but it's not my forte.
Trotsky was not a moderate (he was one of the most radical man in human history).
When I say moderate, I mean less likely to establish countless gulags and kill millions of his own people. I know he was politically radical (constant, international revolution). But as a human, he was moderate, unlike the thug Stalin.
The mensheviks were never in power (were Prince Georgy L'vov and Kerensky mensheviks? no, the mensheviks played no part in the revolution and were outnumdered and out voted by the bolsheviks, they were just a think tank).
I'm sorry, but no. While 'menshevik' comes from 'menshinstvo', meaning minority, this name was assigned by after the Bolsheviks wormed their way into the Central Committee through political wranglings and lock-outs, and the departure of the Jewish Bund from Congress over their outrage. Mensheviks supported a democratic revolution, while Bolsheviks supported a communist revolution. Both had supporters, but I belive (opinion) that most people would have rather had a democracy than communism. However, that is pure political opinion and I'd rather not open that can of worms. The Menshevik's were not a think tank, because that implies they took no political action. They did.
He did not "cripple the largest nation on the planet", that would be Khrushchev.
I did not say that he "crippled the largest nation on the planet". I said "set up a dictatorship and style of rule that crippled one of the largest nations on the planet". The two statements are wholly different. As any person who reads pure, original communist literature (Marx) realizes, having a "vanguard of the party" and establishing a party in the first place automatically goes against the basic belief of Communism- that any society of humans can exist without the need for an organized government. Once Lenin's party was in place, an automatic inequality was created between those who were in the party and made decisions affecting the entire Soviet Union, and those who were not or could not be members of the Party and were effectively ruled over by the few.
Sig made by azteca89
At 2/3/07 12:59 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Who was Jack Kavorkian? What did he do?
Dr. Jack Kevorkian (AKA Dr. Death): doctor that used his medical knowledge and access to medical supplies to help sick people commit suicide. In a nutshell.
At 2/2/07 10:25 PM, Imperator wrote:
Patton
Anti-hero
FDR
Hero
Eisenhower
Hero
Pope John Paul II
Hero
Mao Zedong
A war hero but also a villian as a leader
Please subscribe
"As the old saying goes...what was it again?"
.·´¯`·->YFIQ's collections of stories!<-·´¯`·.
At 2/2/07 08:45 PM, StCyril wrote:Napoleon Bonaparte
Hero, cause he was a great general, villain for being grench.
Karl Marx
Villain, liberals and confessionalists we're already making efforts in helping relieve poverty.
Vladimir Lenin
Isoroku Yamamoto
Wasn't that the Japanese general?
Adolf Hitler wasn't such a villain, he did great things for his country, and was (at the start of the war) a great leader.
At 2/3/07 02:21 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:At 2/2/07 10:25 PM, Imperator wrote: Pope John Paul IIHero
And how is he exactly? What has he done?
.
The question is an incomplete one. Are they heroes or villains compared to what? In what context? For example. Marx made a huge impression on the world with his writing, and actually brought to light many of the problems facing the working class at the time. However, he was a debaucher and had many children out of wedlock, whom he pawned off on his friend Friedrich Engels to take care of and find homes for. In fact, he mooched of Friedrich Engels the majority of his life. So, in the idea as a historical figure, he's somewhat a working-class hero, but in the world of his illegitimate children and a human being, he's not necessarily a villain, but he's no superman.
Here's one for you: Winston Churchill.
Hero: General WWII Prime Ministership and so forth.
Villain: Sending the army in to break up a miners strike, advocating the use of mustard gas on Iraqis, and conspiracy theories about how responsible he was for the Lusitania sinking (he was First Lord of the Admiralty at the time, and is recorded as describing the 1200 that died as the most im,portant casualties of the First World War).
Propaganda is to a Democracy what violence is to a Dictatorship
Never underestimate the significance of "significant."
NG Politics Discussion 101
At 2/2/07 08:45 PM, StCyril wrote: Throughout history there are people who are reguarded as heros and others who are viewed obviously as villains... Example: Abraham Lincoln= Hero, Adolf Hitler = Villain.
But then there are other people in history whos records are in dispute, what would you consider these people? Heroes or Villains?
Napoleon Bonaparte
Setting up France and helping it through the Reign of Terror: Hero; Undoing all that France worked for and making himself emporer for life: villain
Robert E. Lee
Great general in U.S. history: hero; Switching over because he was Southern even though he despised slavery: villain
Karl Marx
He was just a guy with ideas. He was sick of people having bad working conditions, so he trashed them in a pamphlet. Neither hero or villain.
Vladimir Lenin
Getting Russia out of the feudal stages: hero; Setting up a strict Communist regime (and having scary facial hair) : villain
Ho Chi Mihn
Personally, I like him, so I'm gonna say: hero.
Isoroku Yamamoto
I don't know much about him...
Jack Kavorkian
I'm gonna have to go with villain. Why help people die? Just give them the number to the suicide hotiline.
Head of the Newgrounds Department of Defense
At 2/3/07 02:29 PM, MidgetHobo wrote:At 2/3/07 02:21 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:And how is he exactly? What has he done?At 2/2/07 10:25 PM, Imperator wrote: Pope John Paul IIHero
Only furthered the vendetta for world peace in an attempt to bring all religions together to stop worldwide bloodshed and slaughter. So, yeah, you're right, absolutely nothing.
At 2/3/07 04:13 PM, LadyGrace wrote: The question is an incomplete one. Are they heroes or villains compared to what? In what context? For example. Marx made a huge impression on the world with his writing, and actually brought to light many of the problems facing the working class at the time. However, he was a debaucher and had many children out of wedlock, whom he pawned off on his friend Friedrich Engels to take care of and find homes for. In fact, he mooched of Friedrich Engels the majority of his life. So, in the idea as a historical figure, he's somewhat a working-class hero, but in the world of his illegitimate children and a human being, he's not necessarily a villain, but he's no superman.
I don't see how the question is incomplete, I'm simply asking that, based on the historical evidence, who did more good then damage and vice versa and as such who should be considered heroes or villains in each persons opinions.
Best Thread Ever!
"I think StCyril deserves a Highfive for getting two threads made about him and half the BBS pissed off over nothing!" - Seeinthedark
At 2/10/07 04:17 PM, reviewer-general wrote:At 2/3/07 02:29 PM, MidgetHobo wrote:Only furthered the vendetta for world peace in an attempt to bring all religions together to stop worldwide bloodshed and slaughter. So, yeah, you're right, absolutely nothing.At 2/3/07 02:21 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:And how is he exactly? What has he done?At 2/2/07 10:25 PM, Imperator wrote: Pope John Paul IIHero
The man was absolutely amazing and although I disagreed so many things that he advocated, he is by far more hero than villian in my own eyes. Maybe this maybe because he is viewed as one of the most "liberal" of the popes, or maybe because my family has adored him as long as I can remember (and not without reason.)
Even as a "fallen Catholic"-- I have respected the way he's always given pause to think on so many modern issues, even if the result didn't tally up in my corner. Especially his attitude for homosexual issues. Sure-- still a sin. Couldn't expect him to approve gay marriage. But at least he says that one pope to say that we ought to love gay people and not hate them.
That was real special for me.
He will never know how much I viewed him with love.
At 2/11/07 05:43 AM, fli wrote: Especially his attitude for homosexual issues. Sure-- still a sin. Couldn't expect him to approve gay marriage. But at least he says that one pope to say that we ought to love gay people and not hate them.
That was real special for me.
He will never know how much I viewed him with love.
Yeah nice that we go from him to a former Nazi... no Im not kidding.
Best Thread Ever!
"I think StCyril deserves a Highfive for getting two threads made about him and half the BBS pissed off over nothing!" - Seeinthedark
At 2/11/07 05:43 AM, fli wrote:At 2/10/07 04:17 PM, reviewer-general wrote:At 2/3/07 02:29 PM, MidgetHobo wrote:Only furthered the vendetta for world peace in an attempt to bring all religions together to stop worldwide bloodshed and slaughter. So, yeah, you're right, absolutely nothing.At 2/3/07 02:21 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:And how is he exactly? What has he done?At 2/2/07 10:25 PM, Imperator wrote: Pope John Paul IIHero
First of all, I don't consider the position of the Pope to be divine, I believe it is illegitimate and that the Catholic church and its hierarchy has been in a state of Apostasy for centuries. They no longer have authority to preach in the name of God based on what previous popes and followers have done. But I do agree that John Paul was a really good guy and that he PERSONALLY was a man of God on his own, regardless of his position over a church that has become morally degraded and wrong.
For intance, some crazy muslim tried to kill him and shot him. Then the Pope personally forgave him, visited him, and then requested that the man be freed and that his attempted murder charges be dropped.
Forgiveness like that is not seen anywhere else by world leaders and religious leaders. If Grand Ayatollah Khomeini was targeted for assassination but survived, he would have requested the beheading of the assassin and his entire family probably.
Even as a "fallen Catholic"-- I have respected the way he's always given pause to think on so many modern issues, even if the result didn't tally up in my corner. Especially his attitude for homosexual issues. Sure-- still a sin. Couldn't expect him to approve gay marriage. But at least he says that one pope to say that we ought to love gay people and not hate them.
Um...
I don't think any Pope in recent history has ever said that we should hate gay people. Christianity teaches to love your enemy (no pun) and hate the sin but not the sinner. When did a Pope or any other powerful Christian leader say "hate gay people"?
Personally, I despise homosexuality and find it vulgar and wrong. But this causes me to feel sorry for homosexuals, it doesn't make me hate them personally and I think 99% of Christians are the same way, the Pope didn't really do anything extraordinary for gays.
But anyway, with that said. I think the new Pope is the devil. Not only was he in Hitler Youth, but he just LOOKS evil, he looks like he's plotting something.
Yay, Obama won. Let's thank his supporters:
-The compliant mainstream media for their pro-Obama propaganda.
-Black Panthers for their intimidation of voters.
At 2/2/07 08:45 PM, StCyril wrote: Napoleon Bonaparte
He would have been hero if he had WON the damn war and not got greedy wanting Russia too!
But he lots, so he's a villian.
Bla
At 2/11/07 07:04 AM, LolOutLoud wrote:At 2/2/07 08:45 PM, StCyril wrote: Napoleon BonaparteHe would have been hero if he had WON the damn war and not got greedy wanting Russia too!
But he lots, so he's a villian.
I dunno... the world would look a lot different had he won.
Best Thread Ever!
"I think StCyril deserves a Highfive for getting two threads made about him and half the BBS pissed off over nothing!" - Seeinthedark
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. One man's hero is another man's villian. Just depends what side your on.
At 2/11/07 06:34 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: I don't think any Pope in recent history has ever said that we should hate gay people. Christianity teaches to love your enemy (no pun) and hate the sin but not the sinner. When did a Pope or any other powerful Christian leader say "hate gay people"?
Aside from through out history--
During the Holocaust. With the help of Paragraph 175, which sent many gay men to death, was not certainly without disapproval by the Roman Catholic Church. Pushed by Catholics. Upheld by Catholics til the 1960s.
Personally, I despise homosexuality and find it vulgar and wrong. But this causes me to feel sorry for homosexuals, it doesn't make me hate them personally and I think 99% of Christians are the same way, the Pope didn't really do anything extraordinary for gays.
But anyway, with that said. I think the new Pope is the devil. Not only was he in Hitler Youth, but he just LOOKS evil, he looks like he's plotting something.
Yes, Pope Benedict XVI doesn't conjure up affable feelings in the same way how Pope John Paul II had this grandfather image.
But you are certainly wrong about John Paul. Unlike previous popes, he gave pause. It wasn't the instant condemnation so infamous in the Roman Catholic Church.
You're not seeing it as a gay guy who knows about the Roman Catholic Chruch, I'm sorry. He was indeed extraordinary by not showing that trademark Catholic ire, which Pope Benedict wasn't able to control when he was talking about Spain's gay marriage.
You see, attitude does count for a lot.
And nobody can't tell me John Paul had no certain pizazz.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
