Who is the most famous/infamous/ahead of the rest in their field?

[Rippounet]

I have to admit I was a bit caught in my little bubble of intellectual idealism and was genuinely confused when people pissed on philosophers - of all people.
Then I got it and... well, rotfl, as the kids used to say, you guys just made my day.

29 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

If you are naming 2 from the same field, you kind of missed the point. 

Not all fields are unified, but I don't think we can argue with IlyaP naming Aristotle for philosophy.

15 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Judith Butler would be the first name that comes to mind, tho.

Edit: If you say Simone de Beauvoir gets precedent over Butler, fine.

De Beauvoir was the first name that came to my mind, but that felt rather chauvinistic, given all the English-speaking alternatives.

[Crixus]

On 9/17/2023 at 11:47 AM, SeanF said:

Julius Caesar (combined general/politician).

There have been great generals and great politicians, but not many people combine both skillsets.

Was he such a stellar politician though? He seems to have rather misjudged the mood of his key allies - many of his assassins were close to him, whether having been in his service since Gaul, or having rebelled/fought and being pardoned. In fact, while I personally thought his tactic of mercy was great, it put him in mortal peril. As per everything I've read (which is quite a bit), it was not a noble and altruistic desire to save the Republic that drove his killers, but personal motives and grievances. 

 

[Crixus]

On 9/17/2023 at 3:57 PM, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

Because Antony was a bigger jerk in the show (although a loveable one) 

Yeah, James Purefoy was absolutely perfect in that role. Iconic. In fact, much of the cast were, especially Ciarin Hinds as Caesar. 

[Crixus]

On 9/17/2023 at 6:08 PM, polishgenius said:

 

 

Churchill was a shite politician. Almost all he really has on his track record is leading Britain through the war. He was voted out literally immediately afterwards because he ran a terrible campaign that let Attlee in, his second tenure a few years later was marked by him trying and failing to keep the British Empire together, and as others have mentioned, before the war his record was... not great. Some positives, but some absolutely ferocious failures and mistakes, including the aforementioned Galipolli and sending the Black and Tans into Ireland. Even 'being right about Hitler' is really a mixed bag as far as proving his worth as a politician goes, because he didn't convince the nation of that until far too late. I've seen it said that his reputation was bad to the point that him denouncing Hitler actually made opposing the Nazis less credible, because if Churchill felt that strongly about it he was probably wrong. 

Have you read Tariq Ali's 'Winston Churchill: his life, his crimes'? I've started and it is scathing! Curious to know how you'd rate it, as to me it seems revelatory as a counterpoint to the standard Churchill stuff one sees in books and video - but it may also have quite a strong negative bias. 

[Crixus]

On 9/17/2023 at 6:21 PM, Jaxom 1974 said:

Jesus...Tik Tok was right this week...men DO constantly think about Rome...

Not just men!  I honestly found that shit bizarrely misogynistic as a massive fan of Roman history (Republic only, especially the demise - Empire doesn't hit me the same way). 

[SeanF]

36 minutes ago, Crixus said:

Was he such a stellar politician though? He seems to have rather misjudged the mood of his key allies - many of his assassins were close to him, whether having been in his service since Gaul, or having rebelled/fought and being pardoned. In fact, while I personally thought his tactic of mercy was great, it put him in mortal peril. As per everything I've read (which is quite a bit), it was not a noble and altruistic desire to save the Republic that drove his killers, but personal motives and grievances. 

 

I think that his political skills were fading, at the end.  He should never have allowed the impression to develop that he wished to be king.  But, I think he was a gifted politician for most of his life.

[SeanF]

43 minutes ago, Crixus said:

Have you read Tariq Ali's 'Winston Churchill: his life, his crimes'? I've started and it is scathing! Curious to know how you'd rate it, as to me it seems revelatory as a counterpoint to the standard Churchill stuff one sees in books and video - but it may also have quite a strong negative bias. 

Successfully leading Britain through WWII is rather a lot to have on one's record.  As an historian, I'd rate Tariq Ali on a par with Clive Ponting or David Irving, both of whom he quotes with approval.

As a counterpoint, one of the most underrated (during his time in office) leaders was Truman.  I can't think of single big decision (dropping the Bomb, desegregating the army, the Berlin Airlift, the Marshall Plan, creating NATO, the Korean War) that the man got wrong.

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by SeanF

[Crixus]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Successfully leading Britain through WWII is rather a lot to have on one's record.  As an historian, I'd rate Tariq Ali on a par with Clive Ponting or David Irving, both of whom he quotes with approval.

As a counterpoint, one of the most underrated (during his time in office) leaders was Truman.  I can't think of single big decision (dropping the Bomb, desegregating the army, the Berlin Airlift, the Marshall Plan, creating NATO, the Korean War) that the man got wrong.

 

I'd never heard of him but just Googled and was shocked - very problematic. Especially given he used to be a respected historian once. Bit wary of Ali quoting him. 

[Heartofice]

38 minutes ago, Crixus said:

I'd never heard of him but just Googled and was shocked - very problematic. Especially given he used to be a respected historian once. Bit wary of Ali quoting him. 

You made me google him now. Crikey. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

On 9/18/2023 at 6:20 AM, baxus said:

Fixed that for you.  

Thank you. The number of people who dont realize Edison actually prevented the adoption of AC in New York for the longest time is still non-zero apparently. And of course was a prime mover for the first (botched) electric chair execution in the same state.

Although there is also a good argument for Michael Faraday to be up there. Again, my preference is always to share credit with as many people as possible (except Edison)

[SeanF]

53 minutes ago, Crixus said:

I'd never heard of him but just Googled and was shocked - very problematic. Especially given he used to be a respected historian once. Bit wary of Ali quoting him. 

Irving always had a major axe to grind, ever since his book about PQ 17 in the sixties.  He was extremely sympathetic towards Germany's war aims, and was able to gain access to a lot of surviving Nazis as a result, establishing an archive that even more mainstream historians found very helpful.  He started vanishing down the rabbit hole in 1977, with Hitler's War, where he argued that the Holocaust took place without Hitler's knowledge, and that the war was the fault of the United Kingdom and international Jewry.  By 1990, he was completely denying that the Holocaust occurred, while acknowledging that there were localised atrocities committed against Jews, at the same time, treating the Strategic Bombing Campaign, and the Red Army's campaign in Eastern Europe, as far greater crimes.

Ali doesn't endorse all that, obviously, but he does cite Irving's condemnation of Churchill as a war criminal, for overseeing the bombing, and is very angry at Churchill's support for Zionism. Like Irving, he doesn't consider that the Allies enjoyed any moral superiority over the Axis. It's a good example of the political horseshoe effect.

Edited September 21, 2023 by SeanF

[Fragile Bird]

Whether or not Julius Caesar wasn’t a superior politician, surely he was an incredible general.

I’m just watching an episode of Digging for Britain and they’re showing a dig at Ebbsfleet, located at the south east corner of England, where archeologists believe Caesar first landed in 54 BC. The guy showed up with 25,000 troops and 800 ships. 

Just imagine the logistics of that. The numbers are mind blowing. It wasn’t an invasion force, more of an advance softening-up trip (they left with hostages, which is how the Romans entangled local rulers with Rome). Amazing.

[Crixus]

12 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Whether or not Julius Caesar wasn’t a superior politician, surely he was an incredible general.

I’m just watching an episode of Digging for Britain and they’re showing a dig at Ebbsfleet, located at the south east corner of England, where archeologists believe Caesar first landed in 54 BC. The guy showed up with 25,000 troops and 800 ships. 

Just imagine the logistics of that. The numbers are mind blowing. It wasn’t an invasion force, more of an advance softening-up trip (they left with hostages, which is how the Romans entangled local rulers with Rome). Amazing.

There were also bad storms during the trip, so imagine lugging troops and horses through that. Not to mention the Romans' traditional aversion to the sea (despite Mare Nostrum, they preferred land travel and battle). 

He was definitely an incredible general, even if you accept a degree of embellishment in his Gaul commentaries. One of his strengths was speed: he covered huge distances with his legions regularly, often surprising his opponents. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

On 9/21/2023 at 5:51 AM, SeanF said:

 

As a counterpoint, one of the most underrated (during his time in office) leaders was Truman.  I can't think of single big decision (dropping the Bomb, desegregating the army, the Berlin Airlift, the Marshall Plan, creating NATO, the Korean War) that the man got wrong.

In fairness, the Marshall Plan passed the senate and house with veto proof majorities. Whether he favoured it or not he kinda had to sign it.

In terms of blunders, his attitude toward the Soviets would be a big one. He kind of set the tone early for what would become the second red scare and the Cold War in general. Somewhat less belligerence early on would have saved a lot of aggravation later. I think later in life he may have realized this.

He also seriously under estimated the Soviets ability to develop an atomic bomb, which contributed to the above.

And this. Somewhat obscure but still.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._v._Sawyer

 

 

Edited September 22, 2023 by Deadlines? What Deadlines?

[BigFatCoward]

One thing I've never understood about Rome, all the great men were not called Marcus (Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Augustus) for about 100 years.

Pretty much everyone a step below in fame/achievement was. It's like there was a glass ceiling for Marcus/Mark. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

On 9/21/2023 at 7:51 AM, SeanF said:

.

As a counterpoint, one of the most underrated (during his time in office) leaders was Truman.  I can't think of single big decision (dropping the Bomb, desegregating the army, the Berlin Airlift, the Marshall Plan, creating NATO, the Korean War) that the man got wrong.

 

I think bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki were absolutely wrong, and unnecessary to end the war.  

[Zorral]

On 9/21/2023 at 7:51 AM, SeanF said:

Truman

There are so many historians who will absolutely disagree with you, even McPherson that conservative middle of the road guy, on many many points, including the bombing.

[SeanF]

59 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

I think bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki were absolutely wrong, and unnecessary to end the war.  

There were other means of ending it, like tightening the blockade, continuing Le May’s “burning a nation”, or full scale invasion.  But, none of those means seem more humane.

One thing I only recently found out was that a million British, Empire, and Commonwealth soldiers were ear-marked for the invasion, along with a vast Royal Naval contingent.

The atom bombs ended the war, quickly and decisively, and I think Truman was right to give the go ahead.

 

[SeanF]

49 minutes ago, Zorral said:

There are so many historians who will absolutely disagree with you, even McPherson that conservative middle of the road guy, on many many points, including the bombing.

Maybe you have to live on this side of the Pond to fully appreciate the US commitment to Western Europe’s reconstruction and defence.  And very few in the UK objected to the bombing at the time.

[polishgenius]

17 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The atom bombs ended the war, quickly and decisively, and I think Truman was right to give the go ahead.

 

Okay but is your argument that a city full of civilians the only option they could have chosen. As the first target.