Notices
Results 1 to 94 of 94
Like Tree22Likes
  • 4 Post By Daecon
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By Estheria Quintessimo
  • 1 Post By Estheria Quintessimo
  • 2 Post By tk421
  • 1 Post By skeptic
  • 1 Post By Estheria Quintessimo
  • 1 Post By skeptic
  • 2 Post By kojax
  • 1 Post By sarnamluvu
  • 1 Post By babe
  • 1 Post By skeptic
  • 2 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By sarnamluvu

Thread: Alexander the Great - most evil list

  1. #1 Alexander the Great - most evil list 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    I was reading a piece of pseudo-history bulldust the other day, which raved on about what a great man Alexander the Great was. It set me to thinking about how some of the figures in history who were most evil and did the greatest harm to the world are the most lauded.

    Alexander took a bunch of relatively peaceful people, who nevertheless had trained hard to make them good soldiers, and set off on a campaign of slaughter and destruction. At the end, Alexander died and his 'empire' fell apart. Nothing gained, and a whole lot of people and societies destroyed.

    How many others in history are like that? Called 'great', but are really nasty destructive evil creatures.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    I was reading a piece of pseudo-history bulldust the other day, which raved on about what a great man Alexander the Great was. It set me to thinking about how some of the figures in history who were most evil and did the greatest harm to the world are the most lauded.

    Alexander took a bunch of relatively peaceful people, who nevertheless had trained hard to make them good soldiers, and set off on a campaign of slaughter and destruction. At the end, Alexander died and his 'empire' fell apart. Nothing gained, and a whole lot of people and societies destroyed.

    How many others in history are like that? Called 'great', but are really nasty destructive evil creatures.
    well I find myself alexander great... in many ways... so claiming he was evil... we first need to discuss Alexander the great first .... if he fits your evil list... but if you mean evil as everyone who was a leader... than I can say thousand names yes...


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    peaceful people?
    seriously?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,274
    Ghengis Khan?

    Although I suspect 90% of schoolchildren studying English literature would probably suggest Shakespeare.
    Lynx_Fox, Neverfly, babe and 1 others like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    general Amherst
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    I agree with Genghis Khan. Those who set out to conquer other peoples, killing and destroying along the way, for their own power and glory, are IMHO evil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Ghengis Khan?

    Although I suspect 90% of schoolchildren studying English literature would probably suggest Shakespeare.
    Possibly true, but only those who have not studied Chaucer, or wrestled with Beowulf. (And in truth, only those who are being badly educated.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    I'll agree the term "evil" can and should be applied to some people. The more terms we can use to describe this world, the better. And if one feels "evil" too strong or absolute, the solution is to broaden its meaning not cast it out.

    Napoleon was regarded as an all-conquering force, kinda like an atom bomb of his time who should be banned from deployment in warfare. He gets my vote.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I wouldn't put Alexander the Great anywhere near the top of evil. And Napoleon isn't on the list at all.

    My top:
    Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge
    Leaders of the First Crusade
    Mao Zedung's cultural revolutions
    Stalin's purges
    Hitler (nough said)
    Saddam Hussein's genocide and environmental destruction on epic scales (the river rerouting would be a top ten engineering marvel of all time if its purpose had been benevolent) against the Kurds and Marsh Arabs
    Neverfly likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    if we going this way ... PATON Montgomery Churchill Gaule and many more Eisenhower Elizabeth George bush both ariel sharoni slabodan Milosevic Karadzic mladic karel kok lilcoln and many others... tsar stalin lenin couple Spanish queens and leaders... I don't know names right now... men of harlech who ever was their leader... there is actually no leader with significant power who wont fit in your list... this way
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Modern UN values rate harming one's own people as the greatest evil. Nuking another people isn't evil, but nuking one's own is. So Genghis Khan wasn't evil, because he championed Mongolian... um, sperm.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Modern UN values rate harming one's own people as the greatest evil. Nuking another people isn't evil, but nuking one's own is. So Genghis Khan wasn't evil, because he championed Mongolian... um, sperm.
    than neither hitler was...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    But a sovereign is responsible for all people within the borders.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    keeping it going till it fits... hmmm
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Modern UN values rate harming one's own people as the greatest evil. Nuking another people isn't evil, but nuking one's own is. So Genghis Khan wasn't evil, because he championed Mongolian... um, sperm.
    I do not quite see how you ascribe this to the UN.

    Certainly it is true for parochial nations, like the USA. American media tend to report on American deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq etc., and ignore the much larger numbers of locals being killed.

    A truly civilised person will care about peoples of all origins.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Modern UN values rate harming one's own people as the greatest evil. Nuking another people isn't evil, but nuking one's own is.
    I do not quite see how you ascribe this to the UN.
    I was thinking of the recent changes, where now harming one's own people is grounds for intervention... up to and including occupation & regime change. We (us united nations, I mean) don't have such a direct policy for countries that are merely harming citizens of another country.

    The Kurds illustrated this pretty well. Straddling three borders, they've been used and abused as proxy fighters by more than a few states. When they're fighting in a conflict between states, like Iranian Kurds vs. Iraqi Kurds, we don't mind their towns getting bombarded. But when Turkish soldiers shoot Kurds inside Turkey, it's the state harming its own people, and abhorrent. Wouldn't you feel differently if the army crossed the border first before assaulting a town?

    Anyway there's got to be something to the fact every villain on Lynx_Fox's list, harmed his own people.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    I was reading a piece of pseudo-history bulldust the other day, which raved on about what a great man Alexander the Great was. It set me to thinking about how some of the figures in history who were most evil and did the greatest harm to the world are the most lauded.

    Alexander took a bunch of relatively peaceful people, who nevertheless had trained hard to make them good soldiers, and set off on a campaign of slaughter and destruction. At the end, Alexander died and his 'empire' fell apart. Nothing gained, and a whole lot of people and societies destroyed.

    How many others in history are like that? Called 'great', but are really nasty destructive evil creatures.
    Don't think they were ever "Peaceful".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Hitler probably tops my list. Not sure about him in a "Great Leader" position, however.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    The reason I mentioned Amherst, is that he was the great leader who offered the native Americans the blankets infected with small pox.
    a humanitarians humanitarian if ever there was one?
    ...................................
    what we really need is military leaders like:


    The first in love, the first in war, the first to say "I QUIT"
    and
    the mini skirts weren't/ain't bad neither
    ............
    and that, children, was the lighter side of the 50s which led us into the 60s

    credit where credit is due
    leave us not to forget general bullmoose

    ............................
    what good have we accomplished in Iraq or Afghanistan?
    ...............
    here's 'nuther
    just for fun?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    At the end, Alexander died and his 'empire' fell apart. Nothing gained, and a whole lot of people and societies destroyed.


    What he left is a legacy of spreading Greek culture and thinking widely throughout the region--and much of that endured, a hybrid Hellenic culture lasting in Afghanistan and Egypt for centuries. Some of these effects are difficult to argue against, such as formal logic (Aristotle was Alexander's mentor for example), the rest is mostly Western cultural bias.
    Zwirko likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    To Lynx

    We also have a legacy of hatred between Europe and the Middle East. Not, I admit, started by Alexander, since Xerxes was active earlier. But Alexander certainly exacerbated it. Some historians claim that the current conflict between Israel and Palestine, with its satellite conflicts, originated way back then.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    To Lynx

    We also have a legacy of hatred between Europe and the Middle East. Not, I admit, started by Alexander, since Xerxes was active earlier. But Alexander certainly exacerbated it. Some historians claim that the current conflict between Israel and Palestine, with its satellite conflicts, originated way back then.
    time of conflict doesn't matter... and the place of conflict neither... 99%of wars is in the neighborhood...what normaly happens in such large times is that one of those sides become dominant and take over the other... or they both get an border in between... this happened... till Zionism created in 60s
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    To Lynx

    We also have a legacy of hatred between Europe and the Middle East. Not, I admit, started by Alexander, since Xerxes was active earlier. But Alexander certainly exacerbated it. Some historians claim that the current conflict between Israel and Palestine, with its satellite conflicts, originated way back then.
    They're rioting in Africa - YouTube
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore Estheria Quintessimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    153
    History is written by the Victor,... One man's hero is another mans dictator.

    You could be considered Evil... but still be Great. I personally consider Genghis Khan as a great leader. To accomplish what he did, basically from an underdog position and establishing a vast empire that even spread and flourished for a while after he died,... is remarkable.

    Alaxander the Great is not considered great in countries like Pakistan, from what I understand... Indeed once he left his country, he never made it back. Yeah spreading new ideas, but nothing after his death remained but those ideas. You should question a person who makes and renames about 20 cities after himself, whilst crushing his opposition on his traveling rampage. Its called megalomania. Yes great military leader,... he sucked in politics.

    But in all fairness... most leaders of history will have both flaws and remarkable qualities if you study them, with our modern eyes.

    I bet there are some great leaders out there,... who never gotten the title Great, but who would deserve it non the less.

    It will depend what qualities you want such a person to have, in able to consider giving them the title Great.
    Last edited by Estheria Quintessimo; October 25th, 2013 at 05:26 PM. Reason: 50 2 20
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    The Great Gatsby.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    The Great Gatsby.
    I have tried to wrap my head around "The Great Gatsby" for years... not my cup of tea
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo View Post
    History is written by the Victor,... One man's hero is another mans dictator.

    You could be considered Evil... but still be Great. I personally consider Genghis Khan as a great leader. To accomplish what he did, basically from an underdog position and establishing a vast empire that even spread and flourished for a while after he died,... is remarkable.

    Alaxander the Great is not considered great in countries like Pakistan, from what I understand... Indeed once he left his country, he never made it back. Yeah spreading new ideas, but nothing after his death remained but those ideas. You should question a person who makes and renames about 50 cities after himself, whilst crushing his opposition on his traveling rampage. Its called megalomania. Yes great military leader,... he sucked in politics.

    But in all fairness... most leaders of history will have both flaws and remarkable qualities if you study them, with our modern eyes.

    I bet there are some great leaders out there,... who never gotten the title Great, but who would deserve it non the less.

    It will depend what qualities you want such a person to have, in able to consider giving them the title Great.
    its just the proof he had politic... because his empire did well while he was alive... the problem started after his death.,...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore Estheria Quintessimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo View Post
    History is written by the Victor,... One man's hero is another mans dictator.

    You could be considered Evil... but still be Great. I personally consider Genghis Khan as a great leader. To accomplish what he did, basically from an underdog position and establishing a vast empire that even spread and flourished for a while after he died,... is remarkable.

    Alexander the Great is not considered great in countries like Pakistan, from what I understand... Indeed once he left his country, he never made it back. Yeah spreading new ideas, but nothing after his death remained but those ideas. You should question a person who makes and renames about 50 cities after himself, whilst crushing his opposition on his traveling rampage. Its called megalomania. Yes great military leader,... he sucked in politics.

    But in all fairness... most leaders of history will have both flaws and remarkable qualities if you study them, with our modern eyes.

    I bet there are some great leaders out there,... who never gotten the title Great, but who would deserve it non the less.

    It will depend what qualities you want such a person to have, in able to consider giving them the title Great.
    its just the proof he had politic... because his empire did well while he was alive... the problem started after his death.,...
    Yes,.. Alexander the Great's name is still well known in Europe. So he did indeed make an impact. Even the King of my country is named after him (King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands). People like Gaius Julius Ceasar and many other leaders that made their name in wars, looked at his tactics for centuries afterwards. Even modern wars and battles (as far as in WW2 as I recall, but I forgot which battle and Allied General used Alexander's tactics) have been inspired by Alexander.
    But should the legacy of great leadership not also be, the continuation of his/her legacy, by protecting your countries people and provide them with a future? I personally have always felt that Alaxander fell short of this. His empire crumbled almost straight after his death.

    On this,... I would consider Napoleon far more worthy of the title Great. Though after him being banned for the second time,... his legacy is still felt in legislation and culture europe-wide. The impact his social reforms had was very important, and even after his Empire crumbled, remained for the most part intact in my countries, like my own.

    Genghis Khan deserves the title for sure (imho), though his destruction of the pesant populus of China and India caused a cataclysmic disaster in agriculture which still has impact in some area's today (watering systems not maintained, and lands turning into desert),... and though beyond the border of current day Mongolia you wont find many people thinking fondly back at him,... his Empire was amazing for it's day. They took another approach to conquest, they imported all the knowledge from the countries they invaded,... and the Mongolian Empire lasted much longer then Alexanders Empire ever did. Some mechanism that made this Empire work as it did, was the mounted messenger system with horse refreshing station. They were able to send a message from one side of the empire all the way to the other side of the Empire within 7-10 days. No Empire of the past (as far as I recall) ever had this ability pre industrial age.

    But anyway... as I said already, it depends on what parameters you wish to put on the title Great. For me this (most obvious already perhaps) must be the longlevity of the Empire and/or the legacy, after the rulers death or reign.

    I am not sure Alexander would qualify for that... but ofcourse he may be considered Great on many other fields,... like military tactics, strategy and guile.
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Alexander finished what the Persian wars had started. He united the Greeks/Hellenes into a thoroughly singular identity.
    Everywhere he went, he sent scholars and priests and manuscripts back to Greece and Alexandria which had a 2fold consequence, it furthered the concept of the Hellenes as an entity, while sharing Greek culture from the eastern Mediterranean to the Indus valley, and importing other cultural, science and belief systems.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Sophomore Estheria Quintessimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Alexander finished what the Persian wars had started. He united the Greeks/Hellenes into a thoroughly singular identity.
    Everywhere he went, he sent scholars and priests and manuscripts back to Greece and Alexandria which had a 2fold consequence, it furthered the concept of the Hellenes as an entity, while sharing Greek culture from the eastern Mediterranean to the Indus valley, and importing other cultural, science and belief systems.
    If this is a post replying to me....

    Then do not get me wrong. I admire Alexander greatly. To do what he did is amazing. I think no man in history, except perhaps Genghis Khan could compare to him. On the field of battle he is even better, as Genghis Khan did loose some battles. But I would consider Temujin aka Genghis Khan greater to Alexander atleast on the fact Genghis Khan worked his way up from an underdog position. Alexander had no such bad youth and upbringing.

    But after his death Alexander left an Empire without a ruler and civil war broke out. I get the feeling when reading history that Alexander did not look to far ahead in the future. In a time where the average age was not that high, he did not have an official heir. He was 32 when he died, an age in that period and time he would be atleast middle-aged. I can absolutely not think of any reason why he did not have an heir. Kinda like: 'I do not care, when I die you guys go figure it out yourselves.'
    How can someone be so brilliant,... build up an impressive empire,... never loose a battle,... and not care what happens with it all after you die?

    Am I missing something here? If so, please add on it,... and inform me. I am well capable of adjusting my opinion if it is due to me lacking knowledge on a particular subject.

    It's just my opinion...
    He deserves the title Great for his military accomplishements,... but I would deny him that title for nation building, as I consider providing a continuation of that nation after death or reign, very important.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    I hear you talking about hellenes and greeks... whats difference in those 2 quote didn't work this is for sculptor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Alexander finished what the Persian wars had started. He united the Greeks/Hellenes into a thoroughly singular identity.
    Everywhere he went, he sent scholars and priests and manuscripts back to Greece and Alexandria which had a 2fold consequence, it furthered the concept of the Hellenes as an entity, while sharing Greek culture from the eastern Mediterranean to the Indus valley, and importing other cultural, science and belief systems.
    If this is a post replying to me....

    Then do not get me wrong. I admire Alexander greatly. To do what he did is amazing. I think no man in history, except perhaps Genghis Khan could compare to him. On the field of battle he is even better, as Genghis Khan did loose some battles. But I would consider Temujin aka Genghis Khan greater to Alexander atleast on the fact Genghis Khan worked his way up from an underdog position. Alexander had no such bad youth and upbringing.

    But after his death Alexander left an Empire without a ruler and civil war broke out. I get the feeling when reading history that Alexander did not look to far ahead in the future. In a time where the average age was not that high, he did not have an official heir. He was 32 when he died, an age in that period and time he would be atleast middle-aged. I can absolutely not think of any reason why he did not have an heir. Kinda like: 'I do not care, when I die you guys go figure it out yourselves.'
    How can someone be so brilliant,... build up an impressive empire,... never loose a battle,... and not care what happens with it all after you die?

    Am I missing something here? If so, please add on it,... and inform me. I am well capable of adjusting my opinion if it is due to me lacking knowledge on a particular subject.

    It's just my opinion...
    He deserves the title Great for his military accomplishements,... but I would deny him that title for nation building, as I consider providing a continuation of that nation after death or reign, very important.
    he had heir he had his mother alive and 2 sonsi believe from different mothers... wich all got killed after his death... in fight for power of alexander the great (the only who could handle so much power...) you talk about alexander the great like you know him but some basic information you don't know
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Even though I am totally non religious, there are a few quotes from the bible that are worthy. One is :

    "Let he who would be greatest be servant of all."

    I agree with that. The greatest people are those who most serve humanity. People like Alexander, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler etc., are not great except in evil, because their actions harm rather than help humanity. Examples of great people of the past century include Einstein, Gandhi, Mandela etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Even though I am totally non religious, there are a few quotes from the bible that are worthy. One is :

    "Let he who would be greatest be servant of all."

    I agree with that. The greatest people are those who most serve humanity. People like Alexander, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler etc., are not great except in evil, because their actions harm rather than help humanity. Examples of great people of the past century include Einstein, Gandhi, Mandela etc.
    eh yes Einstein has about 500 000 deaths on his name... mandela and Gandhi especialy Gandhi did nothing... in the end
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,640
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    eh yes Einstein has about 500 000 deaths on his name...
    Nonsense.
    Ascended and babe like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Sophomore Estheria Quintessimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Alexander finished what the Persian wars had started. He united the Greeks/Hellenes into a thoroughly singular identity.
    Everywhere he went, he sent scholars and priests and manuscripts back to Greece and Alexandria which had a 2fold consequence, it furthered the concept of the Hellenes as an entity, while sharing Greek culture from the eastern Mediterranean to the Indus valley, and importing other cultural, science and belief systems.
    If this is a post replying to me....

    Then do not get me wrong. I admire Alexander greatly. To do what he did is amazing. I think no man in history, except perhaps Genghis Khan could compare to him. On the field of battle he is even better, as Genghis Khan did loose some battles. But I would consider Temujin aka Genghis Khan greater to Alexander atleast on the fact Genghis Khan worked his way up from an underdog position. Alexander had no such bad youth and upbringing.

    But after his death Alexander left an Empire without a ruler and civil war broke out. I get the feeling when reading history that Alexander did not look to far ahead in the future. In a time where the average age was not that high, he did not have an official heir. He was 32 when he died, an age in that period and time he would be atleast middle-aged. I can absolutely not think of any reason why he did not have an heir. Kinda like: 'I do not care, when I die you guys go figure it out yourselves.'
    How can someone be so brilliant,... build up an impressive empire,... never loose a battle,... and not care what happens with it all after you die?

    Am I missing something here? If so, please add on it,... and inform me. I am well capable of adjusting my opinion if it is due to me lacking knowledge on a particular subject.

    It's just my opinion...
    He deserves the title Great for his military accomplishements,... but I would deny him that title for nation building, as I consider providing a continuation of that nation after death or reign, very important.
    he had heir he had his mother alive and 2 sonsi believe from different mothers... wich all got killed after his death... in fight for power of alexander the great (the only who could handle so much power...) you talk about alexander the great like you know him but some basic information you don't know
    You may be right. I am not an encyclopedia. I do not know everything.

    Perhaps my opinion is coloured by the fact I love other great leaders so much, I never got around to really read up on him.... so I go with what I do know about him. I do respect him absolutely as a military leader. But perhaps I do not know enough of his political exploits to form an opinion on this and spew it here.

    If I am mistaken... my apologies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Alexander finished what the Persian wars had started. He united the Greeks/Hellenes into a thoroughly singular identity.
    Everywhere he went, he sent scholars and priests and manuscripts back to Greece and Alexandria which had a 2fold consequence, it furthered the concept of the Hellenes as an entity, while sharing Greek culture from the eastern Mediterranean to the Indus valley, and importing other cultural, science and belief systems.
    If this is a post replying to me....

    Then do not get me wrong. I admire Alexander greatly. To do what he did is amazing. I think no man in history, except perhaps Genghis Khan could compare to him. On the field of battle he is even better, as Genghis Khan did loose some battles. But I would consider Temujin aka Genghis Khan greater to Alexander atleast on the fact Genghis Khan worked his way up from an underdog position. Alexander had no such bad youth and upbringing.

    But after his death Alexander left an Empire without a ruler and civil war broke out. I get the feeling when reading history that Alexander did not look to far ahead in the future. In a time where the average age was not that high, he did not have an official heir. He was 32 when he died, an age in that period and time he would be atleast middle-aged. I can absolutely not think of any reason why he did not have an heir. Kinda like: 'I do not care, when I die you guys go figure it out yourselves.'
    How can someone be so brilliant,... build up an impressive empire,... never loose a battle,... and not care what happens with it all after you die?

    Am I missing something here? If so, please add on it,... and inform me. I am well capable of adjusting my opinion if it is due to me lacking knowledge on a particular subject.

    It's just my opinion...
    He deserves the title Great for his military accomplishements,... but I would deny him that title for nation building, as I consider providing a continuation of that nation after death or reign, very important.
    he had heir he had his mother alive and 2 sonsi believe from different mothers... wich all got killed after his death... in fight for power of alexander the great (the only who could handle so much power...) you talk about alexander the great like you know him but some basic information you don't know
    You may be right. I am not an encyclopedia. I do not know everything.

    Perhaps my opinion is coloured by the fact I love other great leaders so much, I never got around to really read up on him.... so I go with what I do know about him. I do respect him absolutely as a military leader. But perhaps I do not know enough of his political exploits to form an opinion on this and spew it here.

    If I am mistaken... my apologies.
    there is also some more modern alexander Skanderbeg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Unless we can all agree whether 'evil' is determined by action or intention then we can't even begin to aswer who was the most evil, e.g. does a 1000 accidental/unintended deaths equate to 10 diliberate ones? Should we or can we judge people purely on their actions or actions committed in their name? Vise versa, could we judge on intention alone, even if the actual actions are somewhat different? That's before we could even begin to try and measure one atrocity against another, again something I'm not sure is even possible.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    548
    Alexander the Great was simply a product of his era. There were hardly Enlightenment-based theories of human rights in the ancient world. I wouldn't even call him evil, since he was acting per general ideals of his era. If he was evil, then so were Darius the Great, Xerxes, Julius Caesar and Ramesses.

    I would say Hitler and Stalin are the most evil since they were not solely based on conquest, riches or resources as the ancient or medieval evil people were. For them, it was ideology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    I agree with Genghis Khan. Those who set out to conquer other peoples, killing and destroying along the way, for their own power and glory, are IMHO evil.
    Perhaps. But then what he did was on a large scale. No different than the Crusades occurring at the same time, or the Hundred Years War.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    To sarnamluvu

    There have been many evil leaders in human history. Any person who sets out to invade and conquer other nations for personal benefit, ignoring the death and horror of such warfare is, IMHO, evil.

    By the same token, there have always been people who are the opposite of evil. People who set out to help others.
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Universalis Infinitis Devon Keogh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dublin, Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    145
    I dont think it was so much that he was a bad leader, he was able to hold his great empire together with ease, by his meer presence. It was that his Diadochi successors all wanted a piece of his empire, and so civil war broke out and the empire fell apart into many different successor empires.

    Neither was it that he did not bother to appoint a successor. Thirty-Two was still young for a Greco-Macedonian. He just thought he would die at a regular age, not factoring in his alcoholism.

    "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
    Sir Isaac Newton

    In my own opinion there is no greater mathematical Principle than that which is x - x = 0. This shows that matter can be created from nothing as long as the total product of the matter's mass & energy equal exactly zero.
    The only question is, "Where did all that antimatter go?"

    Favourite Elements: Sodium, Neodymium, Xenon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Sophomore Estheria Quintessimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Unless we can all agree whether 'evil' is determined by action or intention then we can't even begin to aswer who was the most evil, e.g. does a 1000 accidental/unintended deaths equate to 10 diliberate ones? Should we or can we judge people purely on their actions or actions committed in their name? Vise versa, could we judge on intention alone, even if the actual actions are somewhat different? That's before we could even begin to try and measure one atrocity against another, again something I'm not sure is even possible.
    Action or Intention..... That I can agree upon.

    Note I am an Atheist, Darwinist and do not believe in the supernatural, or any next sentence is not a statement that can later be used against me for making so or not, Jesus was an actual person in real life... It is just an example...

    The Romans executing Jesus according to their laws and culture. They did not execute Jesus because he was the son of god according to other people and he was a threat to the power of the Roman Emperor. Jesus got nailed, not for what he was or represented,... but for the potential uprising his presence and claims DID represent.

    Within the framework of the Roman Empire,.... they acted justly swift and correct, noting the present Roman culture at that time. This does not make the Ancient Roman Culture EVIL, though many christians would want to make you believe this.

    One should also take in account,... the mindset of the people of the time we are talking about.

    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Alexander's strength was his ability to bring lots of cultures and people together into one. The army he marched into Persia was not just made up of Macedonians. People from all along the path of his conquests had been joining up voluntarily to march alongside his men.

    Egypt especially, offered only minimal resistance. He fought a few battles against cities that had a problem with his rule, but most of them sent him gifts and embraced his rule, designating him as a pharaoh.

    The other reason he's well remembered is because he was a true absolute ruler in many respects. Someone who could put into force any edict his personality dictated and did so when the people wanted it. The military respected him so much that he could execute even soldiers or senior military officers if he thought they had misbehaved, and the rest of the military would go along with it.

    That last achievement is kind of rare in political history. Most leaders cannot afford to upset their military if they want to hold power for long.


    Quote Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Alexander finished what the Persian wars had started. He united the Greeks/Hellenes into a thoroughly singular identity.
    Everywhere he went, he sent scholars and priests and manuscripts back to Greece and Alexandria which had a 2fold consequence, it furthered the concept of the Hellenes as an entity, while sharing Greek culture from the eastern Mediterranean to the Indus valley, and importing other cultural, science and belief systems.
    If this is a post replying to me....

    Then do not get me wrong. I admire Alexander greatly. To do what he did is amazing. I think no man in history, except perhaps Genghis Khan could compare to him. On the field of battle he is even better, as Genghis Khan did loose some battles. But I would consider Temujin aka Genghis Khan greater to Alexander atleast on the fact Genghis Khan worked his way up from an underdog position. Alexander had no such bad youth and upbringing.

    But after his death Alexander left an Empire without a ruler and civil war broke out. I get the feeling when reading history that Alexander did not look to far ahead in the future. In a time where the average age was not that high, he did not have an official heir. He was 32 when he died, an age in that period and time he would be atleast middle-aged. I can absolutely not think of any reason why he did not have an heir. Kinda like: 'I do not care, when I die you guys go figure it out yourselves.'
    How can someone be so brilliant,... build up an impressive empire,... never loose a battle,... and not care what happens with it all after you die?

    Am I missing something here? If so, please add on it,... and inform me. I am well capable of adjusting my opinion if it is due to me lacking knowledge on a particular subject.

    It's just my opinion...
    He deserves the title Great for his military accomplishements,... but I would deny him that title for nation building, as I consider providing a continuation of that nation after death or reign, very important.
    Alexander became incredibly depressed when he realized he couldn't conquer the whole world. He had to settle for the middle East. He lead a force pretty deep into India, but after a few troublesome battles his men kind of half mutinied, and refused to march any further from home.

    So he went to Babylon and got drunk and partied for most of the rest of his (short) life.

    His empire broke into parts after he died, but it didn't exactly shatter into a million pieces and die. The parts that it initially broke into remained as viable, independent, kingdoms for quite a long time. It just wasn't possible for anyone other than Alexander himself to keep them united.

    Most of them had been tributaries to Persia, and that had been their only basis of unison with Persia. But under Alexander they were equals. So after Alexander was gone, they decided to become "separate but equal".
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    My definition of an evil action is one that is conducted for selfish motives, in spite of the fact that it would hurt others. Alexanders conquests fit that definition perfectly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    we can discuss on that but I don't want topic gets closed
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    I was reading a piece of pseudo-history bulldust the other day, which raved on about what a great man Alexander the Great was. It set me to thinking about how some of the figures in history who were most evil and did the greatest harm to the world are the most lauded.

    Alexander took a bunch of relatively peaceful people, who nevertheless had trained hard to make them good soldiers, and set off on a campaign of slaughter and destruction. At the end, Alexander died and his 'empire' fell apart. Nothing gained, and a whole lot of people and societies destroyed.

    How many others in history are like that? Called 'great', but are really nasty destructive evil creatures.
    Could the efforts during this time be considered evil if violence and conquest was a common practice?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    To chero

    1,000 years ago, murder was 100 times more common than today. That did not make it right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    To chero

    1,000 years ago, murder was 100 times more common than today. That did not make it right.
    so building an empire on the premise of uniting an entire people and several nations to produce peace...that is not right either?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Chero

    That is not what happened.

    Alexander set off to steal other people's lands, and kill as many people as he had to to 'win' the territory. Aftyer killing and maiming his way across as far as India, he decided to settle for a while, but died, leaving his empire to fall apart.
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Unless we can all agree whether 'evil' is determined by action or intention then we can't even begin to aswer who was the most evil, e.g. does a 1000 accidental/unintended deaths equate to 10 diliberate ones? Should we or can we judge people purely on their actions or actions committed in their name? Vise versa, could we judge on intention alone, even if the actual actions are somewhat different? That's before we could even begin to try and measure one atrocity against another, again something I'm not sure is even possible.
    Action or Intention..... That I can agree upon.

    Note I am an Atheist, Darwinist and do not believe in the supernatural, or any next sentence is not a statement that can later be used against me for making so or not, Jesus was an actual person in real life... It is just an example...

    The Romans executing Jesus according to their laws and culture. They did not execute Jesus because he was the son of god according to other people and he was a threat to the power of the Roman Emperor. Jesus got nailed, not for what he was or represented,... but for the potential uprising his presence and claims DID represent.

    Within the framework of the Roman Empire,.... they acted justly swift and correct, noting the present Roman culture at that time. This does not make the Ancient Roman Culture EVIL, though many christians would want to make you believe this.

    One should also take in account,... the mindset of the people of the time we are talking about.
    Amazing.
    Yes, there were others to try and take an uprising against the Empire and their rule in Jerusalem and the land currently referred to as Israel. For that, Jesus could have been a threat. Ironically, He had never been quoted or witnessed to have had any weapons or training an army. He did not rise against the Empire, nor any indication noted towards wanting to rise up against the Empire. Instead, majority of teachings were a war against personal evils. An individual's struggle towards their own enlightenment. The establishment He did argue against was not even Roman.

    So what laws or sense of treason or treachery did Jesus commit? Only record present is that He broke no laws and that the Crucifixion was indeed unjust. No matter who wanted it or not, if you base your reasoning on "law" then there was no reason for crucifixion. If you base your logic on culture, there was no reason for crucifixion. so what in the blarney do you blabber about?!

    Furthermore, the Ancient culture of Roma and its empiro is not based on enforcing law, but their societal norms. oh, I don't know, like forcing those stuck in debt to fight to the death with a beast or gladiator. In actuality, the concept that the Impero Romano was "evil" during phases of its existence.

    1. When the old Republic fell to tyranny of an imperial enslavement
    2. when Christians were slaughtered for believing in Jesus as being God.
    3. Their imperial expansion was based on racial discrimination (or of the sort)
    etc. etc.

    In actuality, the empire is just a group of people. Only people can be evil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Chero

    That is not what happened.

    Alexander set off to steal other people's lands, and kill as many people as he had to to 'win' the territory. Aftyer killing and maiming his way across as far as India, he decided to settle for a while, but died, leaving his empire to fall apart.
    Oh no, I was not thinking of Alexander. He was considered great for those things and doing so in such a vast amount of area in a relatively quick amount of time. Militaristic, he was "great" and therefore we remember him as our ancestor did.

    I was actually thinking of something else.
    Hero Trailer Jet Li - YouTube

    so I asked "what if"
    sorry, should have made my intent clear.

    Oh. uh...
    p.s. I do agree with the concept that killing, even if common, is not right/good in many situations. It's just, if the concept of greatness changes - then it is true that one may be great yesterday, but not today.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Chero

    You are absolutely right in saying that what makes one 'great' today, will be different to what makes one 'great' tomorrow.

    One of the things that fuels my general optimism about the future is that we have seen a great change from barbaric practices to civilised practices. Sure, we have a way to go, but think about this. Even 200 years ago

    - how many people were concerned about cruelty to animals?
    - how many people were kept as slaves?
    - what trivial crimes rated the death penalty?
    - what crimes rated mutilation, or exile for life?
    - how many rulers were happy to steal other people's land by military conquest, killing in the process?
    - how many people were seriously punished or killed for 'blasphemy'?
    - how many people were killed for superstitious beliefs like witches?
    Etc
    Etc

    We have come a long way, working towards greater human rights and a higher degree of umane and civilised behaviour.

    None of that, though, excuses the evil people of the past for being evil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Skeptic,
    Is this thread also determining a list of evil leaders like Alexander?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    To chero

    1,000 years ago, murder was 100 times more common than today. That did not make it right.
    It just wasn't discussed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Chero

    It is a discusson thread. It can go all kinds of directions. What have you in mind?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Chero

    That is not what happened.

    Alexander set off to steal other people's lands, and kill as many people as he had to to 'win' the territory. Aftyer killing and maiming his way across as far as India, he decided to settle for a while, but died, leaving his empire to fall apart.
    He didn't steal lands. He ruled them, and let the people of those lands retain their rights and liberties which they had under previous rulers. The exceptions were those states which particularly vexed him, and those he virtually depopulated (but let the remaining population have it's rights.)

    Indeed, what made him different from a lot of previous conquerors was particularly his willingness to treat the vanquished people as being equal to his own Macedonian people. Persia reduced the regions it conquered to tributary states. Alexander didn't really do that. When a nation conceded to him, what he asked of them instead of tribute, was that they send their young men to join his army. And he gave those young men a part of the spoils, just like his own men got (though his own men got a larger share.)


    By making their men join his army, he removed the vanquished nation's sovereignty (having no longer any army of its own), but at the same time he gave them representation in his greater empire. Every state he absorbed had a say in how things were going to proceed by virtue of the simple fact that their soldiers would not be happy if their home state were mistreated. Most of them agreed that they wanted to overthrow the Persians. He gave them their wish, and then didn't go on to be as bad as Persia had been. I think most of the people of the time would have been happy with that result.

    Even the Persians wouldn't have minded the outcome too much, because he even treated them as equals once he had conquered them (and married Darius's daughter, thus legitimizing himself as their proper king anyway.)
    Ascended and babe like this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Kojax

    None of that changes the fact that he rampaged through a whole bunch of nations, stealing 'spoils', and killing and maiming wholesale, for his own selfish purposes. That, in my view, makes him evil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Chero

    You are absolutely right in saying that what makes one 'great' today, will be different to what makes one 'great' tomorrow.

    One of the things that fuels my general optimism about the future is that we have seen a great change from barbaric practices to civilised practices. Sure, we have a way to go, but think about this. Even 200 years ago

    - how many people were concerned about cruelty to animals?
    - how many people were kept as slaves?
    - what trivial crimes rated the death penalty?
    - what crimes rated mutilation, or exile for life?
    - how many rulers were happy to steal other people's land by military conquest, killing in the process?
    - how many people were seriously punished or killed for 'blasphemy'?
    - how many people were killed for superstitious beliefs like witches?
    Etc
    Etc

    We have come a long way, working towards greater human rights and a higher degree of umane and civilised behaviour.

    None of that, though, excuses the evil people of the past for being evil.
    your are really blind...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    your are really blind...
    Perhaps, blackscorp, you might be a little more specific. If I am to defend myself against an accusation of blindness, I need to know your reasoning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    your are really blind...
    Perhaps, blackscorp, you might be a little more specific. If I am to defend myself against an accusation of blindness, I need to know your reasoning.
    afcource but its just really to much... but I will name one thing your view understanding on civilization is totally wrong but im not blaming you... your are not the only one
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Chero

    It is a discusson thread. It can go all kinds of directions. What have you in mind?
    Possibly discussing leaders, but I don't have a lot of time on my hands I think I'll bow out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Alexander is being set up as a hero actually because he killed lots of Muslims and the multinational corporations need Muslim oil to prosper.  Of course there are religious sides also, the Jews must build the new temple on the ruins of the Dome of the Rock, and the Muslim nations would fight to the last man to prevent that so they have to be disarmed and destroyed.  But the propogandanists on all sides are among the most evil .. those who make up the lies to support mass murders on all sides throughout history, especially those who say 'we are killing them in the name of God.' However, the ordinary middle craft consumer I think is just about as evil as any of those like Hitler, Churchill, Hirohito, the Bushes, Stalin, Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada who sent 300 young mena nd women from our nation to die in Afghanistan to pave the way for the Chinese copper supermine .. of course he was truly ignorant of International Corporations intent as he expected Canadian companies to profit and not Chinese. He does seem to have learned some lessons, though, and I think he's become a good human being.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Alexander is being set up as a hero actually because he killed lots of Muslims and the multinational corporations need Muslim oil to prosper.  Of course there are religious sides also, the Jews must build the new temple on the ruins of the Dome of the Rock, and the Muslim nations would fight to the last man to prevent that so they have to be disarmed and destroyed.  But the propogandanists on all sides are among the most evil .. those who make up the lies to support mass murders on all sides throughout history, especially those who say 'we are killing them in the name of God.' However, the ordinary middle craft consumer I think is just about as evil as any of those like Hitler, Churchill, Hirohito, the Bushes, Stalin, Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada who sent 300 young mena nd women from our nation to die in Afghanistan to pave the way for the Chinese copper supermine .. of course he was truly ignorant of International Corporations intent as he expected Canadian companies to profit and not Chinese. He does seem to have learned some lessons, though, and I think he's become a good human being.
    muslims didn't exist back than and for the next 1000 years...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    your view understanding on civilization is totally wrong but im not blaming you... your are not the only one
    In what way?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Alexander is being set up as a hero actually because he killed lots of Muslims and the multinational corporations need Muslim oil to prosper.  Of course there are religious sides also, the Jews must build the new temple on the ruins of the Dome of the Rock, and the Muslim nations would fight to the last man to prevent that so they have to be disarmed and destroyed.  But the propogandanists on all sides are among the most evil .. those who make up the lies to support mass murders on all sides throughout history, especially those who say 'we are killing them in the name of God.' However, the ordinary middle craft consumer I think is just about as evil as any of those like Hitler, Churchill, Hirohito, the Bushes, Stalin, Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada who sent 300 young mena nd women from our nation to die in Afghanistan to pave the way for the Chinese copper supermine .. of course he was truly ignorant of International Corporations intent as he expected Canadian companies to profit and not Chinese. He does seem to have learned some lessons, though, and I think he's become a good human being.
    muslims didn't exist back than and for the next 1000 years...
    Thank you for the correction. My mind is tired. But the movie Alexander the Great did have him fighting the people from what became Muslim nations .. and that is the message the propogandanists wanted to promote.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Alexander is being set up as a hero actually because he killed lots of Muslims and the multinational corporations need Muslim oil to prosper.  Of course there are religious sides also, the Jews must build the new temple on the ruins of the Dome of the Rock, and the Muslim nations would fight to the last man to prevent that so they have to be disarmed and destroyed.  But the propogandanists on all sides are among the most evil .. those who make up the lies to support mass murders on all sides throughout history, especially those who say 'we are killing them in the name of God.' However, the ordinary middle craft consumer I think is just about as evil as any of those like Hitler, Churchill, Hirohito, the Bushes, Stalin, Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada who sent 300 young mena nd women from our nation to die in Afghanistan to pave the way for the Chinese copper supermine .. of course he was truly ignorant of International Corporations intent as he expected Canadian companies to profit and not Chinese. He does seem to have learned some lessons, though, and I think he's become a good human being.
    muslims didn't exist back than and for the next 1000 years...
    Thank you for the correction. My mind is tired. But the movie Alexander the Great did have him fighting the people from what became Muslim nations .. and that is the message the propogandanists wanted to promote.
    yes he did it and he won
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    [ My mind is tired.
    So are your arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    your are really blind...
    Perhaps, blackscorp, you might be a little more specific. If I am to defend myself against an accusation of blindness, I need to know your reasoning.
    afcource but its just really to much... but I will name one thing your view understanding on civilization is totally wrong but im not blaming you... your are not the only one
    What do you think his view is?
    What do you think is wrong with that view?
    How certain are you that you actually know his view?
    Last edited by John Galt; November 9th, 2013 at 02:32 AM. Reason: Two successive posts
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Kojax

    None of that changes the fact that he rampaged through a whole bunch of nations, stealing 'spoils', and killing and maiming wholesale, for his own selfish purposes. That, in my view, makes him evil.
    Hey the VIKINGS weren't angels!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    [ My mind is tired.
    So are your arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    your are really blind...
    Perhaps, blackscorp, you might be a little more specific. If I am to defend myself against an accusation of blindness, I need to know your reasoning.
    afcource but its just really to much... but I will name one thing your view understanding on civilization is totally wrong but im not blaming you... your are not the only one
    What do you think his view is?
    What do you think is wrong with that view?
    How certain are you that you actually know his view?
    im totally certain I cannot explain things without explainen 1000000000 more basis things which undouptfully will create discussion them also... where I need to explain again 100000000000000000000000000even more basis things and so go to nowhere... and I don't feel like its worth it...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Alexander is being set up as a hero actually because he killed lots of Muslims and the multinational corporations need Muslim oil to prosper.  Of course there are religious sides also, the Jews must build the new temple on the ruins of the Dome of the Rock, and the Muslim nations would fight to the last man to prevent that so they have to be disarmed and destroyed.  But the propogandanists on all sides are among the most evil .. those who make up the lies to support mass murders on all sides throughout history, especially those who say 'we are killing them in the name of God.' However, the ordinary middle craft consumer I think is just about as evil as any of those like Hitler, Churchill, Hirohito, the Bushes, Stalin, Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada who sent 300 young mena nd women from our nation to die in Afghanistan to pave the way for the Chinese copper supermine .. of course he was truly ignorant of International Corporations intent as he expected Canadian companies to profit and not Chinese. He does seem to have learned some lessons, though, and I think he's become a good human being.
    muslims didn't exist back than and for the next 1000 years...
    Thank you for the correction. My mind is tired. But the movie Alexander the Great did have him fighting the people from what became Muslim nations .. and that is the message the propogandanists wanted to promote.
    yes he did it and he won
    He won the Persian war, but later in history after the Muslim religion began Muslims conquered most of Europe. In every case though war is seen by many as a great way of getting rid of the unemployed and those who might rise up against King, State, the wealthy class. Did you know the Persians took 700,000 foot soldiers in their army in their attack on the Greecian cities? Plus they had calvary, and a navy on the road with them.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Certainly things were a lot more violent in the old days. Alexander, Vikings, ancient Romans, Spartans etc. All violent. However, the Golden Rule goes back to those days as well. No violent arsehole of antiquity could claim to be ignorant of humane behaviour. Alexander was evil because he killed and maimed in order to satisfy his own selfish interests, in spite of the fact that his people taught a version of that Golden Rule.

    I suspect Aristarchus is unhappy with my view of history, in that I believe humanity is getting more civilised. Civilised, in this case, meaning more humane behaviour. If that is so, I can justify my view with facts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Certainly things were a lot more violent in the old days. Alexander, Vikings, ancient Romans, Spartans etc. All violent. However, the Golden Rule goes back to those days as well. No violent arsehole of antiquity could claim to be ignorant of humane behaviour. Alexander was evil because he killed and maimed in order to satisfy his own selfish interests, in spite of the fact that his people taught a version of that Golden Rule.

    I suspect Aristarchus is unhappy with my view of history, in that I believe humanity is getting more civilised. Civilised, in this case, meaning more humane behaviour. If that is so, I can justify my view with facts.
    Yes, you are partly correct, Skeptic. On a personal level we are more humane, but I believe that is a result of economic prosperity as much as anything else. However, when things get tough economically and it's every man for himself watch out because the stage is set: Popular Extreme violent martial sports are promoted as economic boons; Computer war games sell in the tens of billions of dollars annualy; hundreds of thousands of brown eyed people killed in the past very few years so the flow of oil is not interrupted; How many Afghans killed to allow the Chinese supercoppermine development?; We are capable of exterminating all life on the planet; very soon three or four billion people will be killed in a nuclear exchange arising from greed for mid east oil.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    To Aristarchus

    Nothing is guaranteed. Life is about change, and that includes entire societies - even the entire world.

    However, the trend seen over the past few centuries is towards more civilised, human behaviour. According to a book I have by prof. Julian simon (economist), the murder rate in England over 1000 years has dropped from 100 killings per 100,000 people per year down to 1.2 today. That is a massive change.

    We also see massive drops in slavery, outlawing serfdom, reducing death penalties, reducing (except the US military) torture, eliminating mutilations as punishments for minor crimes (except in barbaric sharia law), a reduction in nations going out to conquer other nations to gain territory, and so on.

    We still have a long way to go, but we have also come a long way, and the world today (especially the first world) is a lot more 'civilised' than it was even a few centuries back.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Alexander is being set up as a hero actually because he killed lots of Muslims and the multinational corporations need Muslim oil to prosper.  Of course there are religious sides also, the Jews must build the new temple on the ruins of the Dome of the Rock, and the Muslim nations would fight to the last man to prevent that so they have to be disarmed and destroyed.  But the propogandanists on all sides are among the most evil .. those who make up the lies to support mass murders on all sides throughout history, especially those who say 'we are killing them in the name of God.' However, the ordinary middle craft consumer I think is just about as evil as any of those like Hitler, Churchill, Hirohito, the Bushes, Stalin, Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada who sent 300 young mena nd women from our nation to die in Afghanistan to pave the way for the Chinese copper supermine .. of course he was truly ignorant of International Corporations intent as he expected Canadian companies to profit and not Chinese. He does seem to have learned some lessons, though, and I think he's become a good human being.
    muslims didn't exist back than and for the next 1000 years...
    Thank you for the correction. My mind is tired. But the movie Alexander the Great did have him fighting the people from what became Muslim nations .. and that is the message the propogandanists wanted to promote.
    yes he did it and he won
    He won the Persian war, but later in history after the Muslim religion began Muslims conquered most of Europe. In every case though war is seen by many as a great way of getting rid of the unemployed and those who might rise up against King, State, the wealthy class. Did you know the Persians took 700,000 foot soldiers in their army in their attack on the Greecian cities? Plus they had calvary, and a navy on the road with them.
    im not sure why you talking about muslims but even than they never got as far in Europe as alexander the great got in asia...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Certainly things were a lot more violent in the old days. Alexander, Vikings, ancient Romans, Spartans etc. All violent. However, the Golden Rule goes back to those days as well. No violent arsehole of antiquity could claim to be ignorant of humane behaviour. Alexander was evil because he killed and maimed in order to satisfy his own selfish interests, in spite of the fact that his people taught a version of that Golden Rule.

    I suspect Aristarchus is unhappy with my view of history, in that I believe humanity is getting more civilised. Civilised, in this case, meaning more humane behaviour. If that is so, I can justify my view with facts.
    lets talk about one of last wars... Iraq... than tell me about humane behavior and your civilized civilization and other dreamy dreams of the blinds... homer was also blind but he didn't talk shit

    you know forget it you don't have to answer im not going even in discussion... its not worth it if I have to talks about such clear things...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    lets talk about one of last wars... Iraq... than tell me about humane behavior and your civilized civilization and other dreamy dreams of the blinds... homer was also blind but he didn't talk shit

    you know forget it you don't have to answer im not going even in discussion... its not worth it if I have to talks about such clear things...
    I never said things were perfect - just that they were improving.

    In fact, and this may surprise you, since WWII deaths from war have been dropping. Every decade has seen fewer deaths from war. It would be even lower if the USA had not been inflicted with Dubya.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    lets talk about one of last wars... Iraq... than tell me about humane behavior and your civilized civilization and other dreamy dreams of the blinds... homer was also blind but he didn't talk shit

    you know forget it you don't have to answer im not going even in discussion... its not worth it if I have to talks about such clear things...
    I never said things were perfect - just that they were improving.

    In fact, and this may surprise you, since WWII deaths from war have been dropping. Every decade has seen fewer deaths from war. It would be even lower if the USA had not been inflicted with Dubya.
    you know it best
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by blackscorp View Post
    you know it best
    No secrets in this. The fact of reducing war deaths has been reported widely.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    794
    if you say so
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    548
    I guess it depends how one defines evil.

    I contend that Alexander the Great was no different to other leaders in the ancient world, it's just he was more noted based on his military innovations.

    People often balk at subjective morals, but then IMO it makes some sense in that different cultural backgrounds do affect our biases and judgments. In Alexander's day, his actions were the norm. Just as he conquered Persia, the Persians conquered others, as did the Egyptians, ancient Chinese, etc.
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    I agree that all of these people were actually similar. Vikings, Napoleon, Genghis Kahn, Alexander the Great......were pretty much doing just what they did in those days! Was it right? No. Was it accepted. I believe so.
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Was it evil? Yes.
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    A good deal has been made about the 'fact' that war deaths are reduced .. if that is true the BIGGEST reason is that 'wars' fought since the U.S. lost Korea and Vietnam are against totally defenceless nations, nations, for instance, like Iraq which fulfilled U.N. requests to eliminate their weapons of mass destruction. The result of this is that U.S. losses are greater from suicide of their troops than from combat, the suicides the result of the troops knowing they are taking part in mass murder of civilians as well as mass murder of defenceless militaries. The coming nuclear exchange will more than make up for the seeming increase in mankind's humane ways, and we on this forum will probably see that exchange. Also, apart from war, slavery in industrialized nations like Canada where I live and the U.S. is such that a person working for minimum wage is required to work two weeks to pay rent on a room in a squalid rooming house, even if the employee's own room is clean. This slavery is enforced by militaries and police forces which protect employers increasingly from union activities. Any seeming increase in humane treatment of humans by humans is a very thin façade.
    Search engines are such useful tools .. I wonder why more people don't use them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    A good deal has been made about the 'fact' that war deaths are reduced .. if that is true the BIGGEST reason is that 'wars' fought since the U.S. lost Korea and Vietnam are against totally defenceless nations, nations, for instance, like Iraq which fulfilled U.N. requests to eliminate their weapons of mass destruction. The result of this is that U.S. losses are greater from suicide of their troops than from combat, the suicides the result of the troops knowing they are taking part in mass murder of civilians as well as mass murder of defenceless militaries. The coming nuclear exchange will more than make up for the seeming increase in mankind's humane ways, and we on this forum will probably see that exchange. Also, apart from war, slavery in industrialized nations like Canada where I live and the U.S. is such that a person working for minimum wage is required to work two weeks to pay rent on a room in a squalid rooming house, even if the employee's own room is clean. This slavery is enforced by militaries and police forces which protect employers increasingly from union activities. Any seeming increase in humane treatment of humans by humans is a very thin façade.
    Do you troll on purpose?

    Remarkable in three visits to Iraq spanning the Kurdish areas along the Syria border and my last tour living with the Iraq Army near Basra I never saw any of the stuff you mention. I did participate in several operations (Air Assault. Hoorah!) to keep tribes from killing each other, and dozens more to meet humanitarian needs of those same tribes to reduce tensions and the soften the desperation from really really bad past few decades. The biggest reduction in casualties wasn't because we were against defenseless opponents, but because of medical training that equipped even non-medical soldiers, such as myself, with medical technology completely unknown even 20 years ago (blood clotting agents for example), very effective medical evacuation to get injured in a couple moments to even better medical technology unimagined a couple decades ago. You add in dramatic drop in fratricide, much better protective equipment, and lower non-battle deaths (disease, food etc). from Nearly 200 thousand vets of Iraqi Afghan wars are collecting disability as a direct result of those wars (myself included)--many of them would be dead in earlier times. In fact total number of disabilities between Vietnam and the more recent wars are in the same ballpark numbers.

    And don't fall in the trap of thinking the past was any better. US and probably Canadian citizens, despite the slow growth in relative income for lower socio-economic groups compared to the wealthy, are still much better off than any prior generation.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; November 10th, 2013 at 09:30 PM.
    skeptic and babe like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I agree that all of these people were actually similar. Vikings, Napoleon, Genghis Kahn, Alexander the Great......were pretty much doing just what they did in those days! Was it right? No. Was it accepted. I believe so.
    I would agree here, in the time of Alexander the idea of conquest was considered noble and something to be celebrated, certainly it wasn't percieved as evil by either Alexander himself or his acolytes & contemporaries. His actions may have resulted in the enactment of certain deeds that might be deemed evil, depending on the definition chosen, but certainly without intent, no mens rea, then I don't feel we could really classify him as evil. To be considered truely evil I think you need to demonstrate an awareness of causing suffering to others as well as actually just the causing of it, but that's purely my own opinion of evil.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    I agree that all of these people were actually similar. Vikings, Napoleon, Genghis Kahn, Alexander the Great......were pretty much doing just what they did in those days! Was it right? No. Was it accepted. I believe so.
    I would agree here, in the time of Alexander the idea of conquest was considered noble and something to be celebrated, certainly it wasn't percieved as evil by either Alexander himself or his acolytes & contemporaries. His actions may have resulted in the enactment of certain deeds that might be deemed evil, depending on the definition chosen, but certainly without intent, no mens rea, then I don't feel we could really classify him as evil. To be considered truely evil I think you need to demonstrate an awareness of causing suffering to others as well as actually just the causing of it, but that's purely my own opinion of evil.
    You were a "hero"....accolades were given to you. Was it right? No. But it WAS typical of civilization at that time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Lynx

    Good post.

    I think, though, that the reduction in war deaths comes from more than just better medicine, though that is of considerable importance. It is also the fact that the wars are smaller and fewer.

    On killings and maimings being seen as OK in antiquity because people glorified them.
    Yes, that is probably true. But proper behaviour was also well known, and killings were not acceptable. To send an army into someone else's nation and kill and maim in order to steal territory is still an evil act.

    Nor has it ended. The USA took Guantanamo Bay off Cuba during the Spanish American war of 1898 at gunpoint. That is by military conquest, and refuses to return it even today. That shows that this kind of evil has not ended even now, not even with so-called advanced western nations. Israel, of course, does worse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    I think, though, that the reduction in war deaths comes from more than just better medicine, though that is of considerable importance. It is also the fact that the wars are smaller and fewer.
    10-15% of combat wounded died in Iraq/Afghanistan
    roughly 40% of wounded in Vietnam died.
    300% survival difference is huge.
    If we'd have Vietnam medical tech and evac we'd have lost over 20,000 in the Iraq/Afghan wars.

    And than lets consider the dramatic improvement of protective gear prevented many of our military from being injured in the first place. When my vehicle was hit be an improved explosive in Iraq, no one was seriously hurt (other than jangled nerves)--after EOD showed up to collect evidence and we did some quick repairs we continued the mission. The explosive triggered prematurely it's force and shrapnel directed and mostly missing the vehicle to the front. Now consider the equipment in our vehicle--a powerful radio jammer rotating frequencies and synchronized so I could still use my frequency hopping FM radio as well as my blue force tracker. A long boom extended to the front of my vehicle with a heat emitter to trigger IR keyed explosives. Another on board system would detect and give direction of any ballistic weapons fire nearby. The truck itself had thick ceramic plating and an underbelly designed to divert blast from an underside away from the crew compartment. Lastly our individual body armor covering all but our appendages with Kevlar armor and ballistic glass eye wear both of which saved my relatively explosed gunner from injury. They same blast on most vehicles used in Vietnam would have likely been a direct hit, probably several injured my gunner and me who was sitting closest to the explosion in the command position.

    And consider the tactical options we had compared to a similar event in Vietnam. After the blast I was still able to drive the patrol out of the likely kill zone and direct my operations officer (I was the patrol leader) to report the incident while I checked for crew injuries assessed damage. In less than two minutes I had confirmation that a medevac crew was hot on the pad waiting for a call if needed; 30 seconds after that, a pair of F16s called me, reported their ordinance and capabilities and asked for guidance (I asked them for a quick IR recon for potential ambush and a zone recon of the route from the air so I could get on with our mission). Most patrols in Vietnam had one radio in the command vehicle, mine,...which would have been the one hit by the explosive and our small 3 vehicle convey an ideal target for small arms attack. Smartly for the insurgents that attacked us, rather than face precise well coordinated joint force counterattack they decided not to try. That sort of tactical response also saved a tremendous number of lives.
    babe likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Lynx

    All of that is true. But most war fatalities are not Americans. I am looking at this globally. War deaths have dropped for all nations, and a large number of them do not have access to the wonderful medical facilities American soldiers have. In Vietnam, 50,000 Americans died, and 2 million Vietnamese. This ratio should put it into perspective. War fatalities for all nations have dropped. Reducing combat deaths for Americans is a tiny part of that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Lynx

    All of that is true. But most war fatalities are not Americans. I am looking at this globally. War deaths have dropped for all nations, and a large number of them do not have access to the wonderful medical facilities American soldiers have. In Vietnam, 50,000 Americans died, and 2 million Vietnamese. This ratio should put it into perspective. War fatalities for all nations have dropped. Reducing combat deaths for Americans is a tiny part of that.
    I agre with you and missed that you'd broadened the discussion. My comments were specifically in relation to AiX comment about US casualties in recent wars.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Kojax

    None of that changes the fact that he rampaged through a whole bunch of nations, stealing 'spoils', and killing and maiming wholesale, for his own selfish purposes. That, in my view, makes him evil.
    Has it occurred to you that maybe the people involved wanted that?

    Maybe his soldiers enjoyed the exhilaration of combat. Just like how many teenagers today strap on parachutes and jump out of airplanes? The Persian soldiers too.

    Every group Alexander approached had the option to concede peacefully. He wasn't going to kill anyone that didn't oppose him.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Certainly things were a lot more violent in the old days. Alexander, Vikings, ancient Romans, Spartans etc. All violent. However, the Golden Rule goes back to those days as well. No violent arsehole of antiquity could claim to be ignorant of humane behaviour. Alexander was evil because he killed and maimed in order to satisfy his own selfish interests, in spite of the fact that his people taught a version of that Golden Rule.

    I suspect Aristarchus is unhappy with my view of history, in that I believe humanity is getting more civilised. Civilised, in this case, meaning more humane behaviour. If that is so, I can justify my view with facts.
    Would it be fair to say that the Persians had broken that rule already?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Certainly things were a lot more violent in the old days. Alexander, Vikings, ancient Romans, Spartans etc. All violent. However, the Golden Rule goes back to those days as well. No violent arsehole of antiquity could claim to be ignorant of humane behaviour. Alexander was evil because he killed and maimed in order to satisfy his own selfish interests, in spite of the fact that his people taught a version of that Golden Rule.

    I suspect Aristarchus is unhappy with my view of history, in that I believe humanity is getting more civilised. Civilised, in this case, meaning more humane behaviour. If that is so, I can justify my view with facts.
    I wouldn't agree. I think the past 100 years have been mightily bloody.
    blackscorp likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    To sarnamluvu

    Note the following article.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/op...tyle.html?_r=0





    There is a statistic which is now kept. That is : percentage of the male population to die in war each year. This number has been dropping decade by decade since WWII. Each decade that passes sees fewer deaths in war.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Will a great dancer be a great Mathematician?
    By Sandwitch in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: May 25th, 2013, 03:43 PM
  2. Alexander's Descendants
    By okamido in forum History
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 24th, 2011, 02:31 PM
  3. Alexander the Great
    By Beryl in forum History
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: August 7th, 2011, 06:35 PM
  4. King Alexander
    By ginger in forum History
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: July 2nd, 2011, 08:32 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 9th, 2008, 06:52 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •