The Low Content thread for History Buffs

[Rampage_Jackson]

Found this awesome gambling related history quote a couple weeks ago:

"History, to a philosopher, is what gambling was to the Marquis de Dangeau: he saw a system, relations, consequences, where others saw only the caprice of fortune." ~Edward Gibbon

[quest_ioner]

Originally Posted by Rampage_Jackson

Found this awesome gambling related history quote a couple weeks ago:

"History, to a philosopher, is what gambling was to the Marquis de Dangeau: he saw a system, relations, consequences, where others saw only the caprice of fortune." ~Edward Gibbon

Fantastic choice.

[Ahigh]

Originally Posted by dalerobk

Anybody have any interest in an "Ask a Professional Historian Thread"? Not sure if it would just be lame, but I thought some history buffs might be interested in this. I'd be happy to do it, if there's interest.

Originally Posted by diebitter

It would not be lame

As long as historian wont start answering every question with "i don't know much about it, i just know history of a certain country for a period of about 2 centuries".

[diebitter]

Who do you think is the most interesting person to study?


I'd say Hitler.

[plaaynde]

Originally Posted by diebitter

Who do you think is the most interesting person to study?


I'd say Hitler.

I´m almost sorry to say you may be right.

[Le Boeuf]

Originally Posted by diebitter

Who do you think is the most interesting person to study?


I'd say Hitler.

Yeah, there's just so much written about him, and the effect of his life and decisions were pretty massive. His interesting period is limited to 15 years or so. If you could pick a 'clan' i'd be leaning to the Kennedy's/Kim's of Northern Korea.

[plaaynde]

Columbus is pretty interesting too, with his achievements and shortcomings.

Then we have the Baader-Meinhof complex.

Edgar Hoover.

[Le Boeuf]

Just out of interest, without having to trawl through books, what were his shortcomings?

[chezlaw]

Originally Posted by diebitter

Who do you think is the most interesting person to study?


I'd say Hitler.

Churchill way ahead imo. Many just think WW2 but so much more, an extraordinary chap.

Even before his political carear he escaped a pow camp during the boer war and had a price on his head (I think he was the only such person)

Then there's huge politics: general strike, minimum wage, gold standard, his pro-appeasment role, his anti-appeasment role, galiipoli and much more in WW1, gassing the kurds, WWII. etc etc

and the man: painter, writer, bricklayer, manic depressive, alcoholic, wit and repartee

[tiltowhirl]

I would say Jesus, not because of faith (I'm actually a long time agnostic) but because I like the question of whether he actually existed regardless of divinity. What do you think, man or myth (please no derail into theist vs atheist debate)?

Hi's is my suggestion but I liked histards

[Ahigh]

Originally Posted by chezlaw

Churchill way ahead imo. Many just think WW2 but so much more, an extraordinary chap.

I agree with you 100% that Churchill is way way way ahead but i only have one question. With all of those :

and the man: painter, writer, bricklayer, manic depressive, alcoholic, wit and repartee

how did he managed not to be a heavy coke user?

[plaaynde]

Originally Posted by Le Boeuf

Just out of interest, without having to trawl through books, what were his shortcomings?

Columbus apparently? Believing the world was so small, that he thought he had come to Asia, and apparently stubbornly believing it to the end. Being a bad and savage administrator of the conquered areas in the New world. And...not having any painting or even drawing to be done of himself. So we don´t know how he looked . How is that possible? We are talking about a remarkable explorer, 15th-16th century.

[Le Boeuf]

Originally Posted by plaaynde

Columbus apparently? Believing the world was so small, that he thought he had come to Asia, and apparently stubbornly believing it to the end. Being a bad and savage administrator of the conquered areas in the New world. And...not having any painting or even drawing to be done of himself. So we don´t know how he looked . How is that possible? We are talking about a remarkable explorer, 15th-16th century.

Lols. So are all the 'pictures' of him just by memory etc.? No facial reconstructions?
What a silly boy

[Le Boeuf]

Originally Posted by tiltowhirl

I would say Jesus, not because of faith (I'm actually a long time agnostic) but because I like the question of whether he actually existed regardless of divinity. What do you think, man or myth (please no derail into theist vs atheist debate)?

Hi's is my suggestion but I liked histards

There is more documentation/proof etc. for his existence than people like Caesar. There is no doubt of his existence imho, just his achievments.

[Le Boeuf]

What do people think of a thread about "greatest" past "people" thread. We could import some of the lists already done; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Britons, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gre...merican#Top_25, or some others, or make our own?
Maybe specify criteria; influence, moral good, power, cultural importance, reverence, etc.
Think i'd enjoy discussing why some should be higher/lower, included/not;
but its probably important to get good thread boundaries before diving in

Bear in mind that this will not end up an influence thread like the one going on (and getting a bit derailed,) merely an awesomeness thread