I was thinking about this while listening to a book on religious violence.
I think the only figure that springs immediately to mind is Cyrus the Great. A lot of my favorite people in history-Teddy Roosevelt, Peter I-end up murdering their sons somehow.
Cyrus is pretty decent. Alexander Nevsky. Alfred the Great. Macbeth, maybe. William III of England is disqualified for the Dutch revolt; Tokugawa is disqualified because, well, you know... Emperor Meiji, maybe? Sun Yat Sen. Haile Selassie? Alexander I of Russia (unless you believe he is a regicide). St. Sava of Serbia. Cincinnatus. Themistocles. Marcus Brutus (the founder, not the murderer of Caesar). Gaius Gracchus. Tiberius Gracchus. Cicero. George Washington. John Adams. Jonathan Edwards. The Wesleys. William Wilberforce. William Pitt the Younger.
And of course, Vincent Thomas Lombardi, John Carroll, and George VI of England.
What makes someone good is a tough definition for me. I'm not sure.
Sulla
Tamerlane. He was willing to make the tough decisions.
Hard to say as I've yet to decide if I'm great or just good. :smoke:
:P
I am presuming by "good" he is meaning a decent bloke, as opposed to a raging asshole. :P
A lot of the guys Spellus and Scipio are mentioning (Cyrus and Alfred the Great) may benefit from the fact we don't get the full stereo perspective on their actions.
A lot of people who were declared saints were probably not so bad, though I imagine Viking would disagree.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 21, 2014, 07:12:04 PM
Sulla
I've often wondered about your... predilection for Sulla. Is it because he was ruthless or because he had a thing for boys, which he denied most of his life, only to indulge in it when all he set out to do was accomplished?
EDIT: *if* we are to believe McCullough that is...
G.
Quote from: Grallon on December 21, 2014, 07:46:18 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 21, 2014, 07:12:04 PM
Sulla
I've often wondered about your... predilection for Sulla. Is it because he was ruthless or because he had a thing for boys, which he denied most of his life, only to indulge in it when all he set out to do was accomplished?
EDIT: *if* we are to believe McCullough that is...
G.
Killing people. Plus it annoys certain folks on the interwebs.
Quote from: Scipio on December 21, 2014, 06:58:43 PM
Alexander Nevsky.
What makes him especially good? Assuming you ignore the mostly fictional Eisenstein version, he was pretty similar to the other Rus princes at the time.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 21, 2014, 07:54:43 PM
Killing people. Plus it annoys certain folks on the interwebs.
That would be an interesting survey no doubt; how many of our 'luminaries' here would secretly enjoy to indulge in a killing spree if they had the chance.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on December 21, 2014, 07:46:18 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 21, 2014, 07:12:04 PM
Sulla
I've often wondered about your... predilection for Sulla. Is it because he was ruthless or because he had a thing for boys, which he denied most of his life, only to indulge in it when all he set out to do was accomplished?
EDIT: *if* we are to believe McCullough that is...
G.
:secret: He was a novelist.
Abraham Lincoln was cunning when he needed to be, but overall a decent fellow I think.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 21, 2014, 08:35:01 PM
Abraham Lincoln was cunning when he needed to be, but overall a decent fellow I think.
Good one. Doted on his sons, patient with his nut case wife.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2014, 08:38:25 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 21, 2014, 08:35:01 PM
Abraham Lincoln was cunning when he needed to be, but overall a decent fellow I think.
Good one. Doted on his sons, patient with his nut case wife.
If he is vulnerable anywhere, I suppose those who are unbendable on civil rights would take great issue with his wartime attitude towards habeus corpus and such.
And maybe being too tolerant/detached towards crappy generals. But then I think he might also be a rare leader who knew that military strategy was not his forte, and tried to leave it the supposed experts as best he could.
Barack Obama seems to be a pretty decent bloke.
Compared to Medieval European monarchs, Asiatic step lords, and Middle Eastern Emperors most US presidents are going to look pretty good.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 21, 2014, 08:51:46 PM
Compared to Medieval European monarchs, Asiatic step lords, and Middle Eastern Emperors most US presidents are going to look pretty good.
New Word > Old World :)
But seriously, it may be more a matter of time than of place. The further you go back in history/civilization, the more it seemed necessary to dispense with some moral niceties, or else the plethora of other murderous, power-hungry thugs will just walk/stab all over you.
Also, wasn't Marcus Aurelius supposed to be alright, compared to many Roman emperors?
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 21, 2014, 08:50:16 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2014, 08:38:25 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 21, 2014, 08:35:01 PM
Abraham Lincoln was cunning when he needed to be, but overall a decent fellow I think.
Good one. Doted on his sons, patient with his nut case wife.
If he is vulnerable anywhere, I suppose those who are unbendable on civil rights would take great issue with his wartime attitude towards habeus corpus and such.
And maybe being too tolerant/detached towards crappy generals. But then I think he might also be a rare leader who knew that military strategy was not his forte, and tried to leave it the supposed experts as best he could.
I don't know about tolerant or detached toward crappy generals. He was constantly sending telegrams ordering them to move their asses. He canned quite a few. The problem was there was nobody on either side that had experience moving such large armies and very few who even had the academic knowledge of military matters. Political generals were generally incompetent, but they often carried their weight by bring in volunteers. It's hard to turn down the services of a congressman who bring with him 2,000 men to fight for the cause. You fire the popular political general and you run the risk of those soldiers just going home.
Quote from: Grallon on December 21, 2014, 08:09:02 PM
how many of our 'luminaries' here would secretly enjoy to indulge in a killing spree if they had the chance.
I've compiled an extensive and comprehensive list.
I better top that list.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 21, 2014, 08:23:32 PM
Quote from: Grallon on December 21, 2014, 07:46:18 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 21, 2014, 07:12:04 PM
Sulla
I've often wondered about your... predilection for Sulla. Is it because he was ruthless or because he had a thing for boys, which he denied most of his life, only to indulge in it when all he set out to do was accomplished?
EDIT: *if* we are to believe McCullough that is...
G.
:secret: He was a novelist.
with a vagina... But she gets the scoop from Plutarch.
Quote from: DGuller on December 21, 2014, 08:51:40 PM
Barack Obama seems to be a pretty decent bloke.
Yeah, but the question was how many great people are also good people. Jimmy Carter is a very good person, but he was really crappy President. President Obama is the same, I think, though not as extreme as Carter. And least anyone think I'm just being partisan here, I'd say the same about Gerald Ford, and to a lesser extent, both Bushes.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 21, 2014, 09:14:35 PM
I better top that list.
You're in the "Douchebags most likely to be in a Lexus Christmas Commercial" subcategory.
Quote from: dps on December 21, 2014, 09:30:46 PM
Jimmy Carter is a very good person, but he was really crappy President.
History will determine whether or not he was
really crappy, thank you. :mad:
I'm trying to think of any Presidents who were bad people but good Presidents...
Nixon? LBJ? Jefferson?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 21, 2014, 09:32:15 PM
Quote from: dps on December 21, 2014, 09:30:46 PM
Jimmy Carter is a very good person, but he was really crappy President.
History will determine whether or not he was really crappy, thank you. :mad:
How much longer do we have to wait?
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 21, 2014, 09:40:58 PM
Nixon? LBJ? Jefferson?
What's so bad about LBJ? Honest question, I don't know much about him.
EDIT: it's pretty funny that you have to specify when you are asking an honest question here. :D
Quote from: sbr on December 21, 2014, 10:06:28 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 21, 2014, 09:40:58 PM
Nixon? LBJ? Jefferson?
What's so bad about LBJ? Honest question, I don't know much about him.
EDIT: it's pretty funny that you have to specify when you are asking an honest question here. :D
Not a murderer or psychopath, of course, but I always had the impression that LBJ was quite an asshole in person. Maybe he was just on par for being Texan, though. :P
Obviously the vices we seen in more modern politicians (outside the really off-the-reservation Hitlers/Stalins/Mao's) will be panty-waist stuff compared to the feudal, classical types.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 21, 2014, 10:10:00 PM
Maybe he was just on par for being Texan, though. :P
Hey! I was only slightly an asshole :P
Quote from: sbr on December 21, 2014, 10:06:28 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 21, 2014, 09:40:58 PM
Nixon? LBJ? Jefferson?
What's so bad about LBJ? Honest question, I don't know much about him.
EDIT: it's pretty funny that you have to specify when you are asking an honest question here. :D
History wasn't kind to him. He waged the Vietnam war which put him on the new left's shit list, and major proponent of civil rights which caused Southern Democrats to hate him even more. In more recent years, a new generation of Republicans (often descended from the Southern Democrats), have tried to argue that deep down he was a worse racist then southern Democrats who left the part over segregation and that he was secretly plotting to put blacks into slavery. You can see tidbits of these ideas in modern Republican statements about federal "plantations", and how welfare is the new slavery.
Quote from: dps on December 21, 2014, 09:30:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 21, 2014, 08:51:40 PM
Barack Obama seems to be a pretty decent bloke.
Yeah, but the question was how many great people are also good people. Jimmy Carter is a very good person, but he was really crappy President. President Obama is the same, I think, though not as extreme as Carter. And least anyone think I'm just being partisan here, I'd say the same about Gerald Ford, and to a lesser extent, both Bushes.
What exactly was so bad about Carter?
Carter was no Calvin Coolidge
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 21, 2014, 10:10:00 PM
Obviously the vices we seen in more modern politicians (outside the really off-the-reservation Hitlers/Stalins/Mao's) will be panty-waist stuff compared to the feudal, classical types.
We could only wish we had an LBJ in Congress now, berating the fuck out of that little shit Ted Cruz at the urinal, smacking McConnell and Reid like Stooges, driving Rand Paul to the point of tears over his perm, and showing Nancy Pelosi a Monster Cock That Moves Legislation By Its Very Presence.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 21, 2014, 08:58:09 PM
I don't know about tolerant or detached toward crappy generals. He was constantly sending telegrams ordering them to move their asses.
"Four score and seven years ago I ordered you to move your ass. And still nothing. Wtf dude? I swear if you gaytards don't ..."
Charles XII.
Quote from: The Brain on December 21, 2014, 11:53:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 21, 2014, 08:58:09 PM
I don't know about tolerant or detached toward crappy generals. He was constantly sending telegrams ordering them to move their asses.
"Four score and seven years ago I ordered you to move your ass. And still nothing. Wtf dude? I swear if you gaytards don't ..."
""If General McClellan does not want to use the Army, I would like to borrow it for a time, provided I could see how it could be made to do something."
Quote from: Scipio on December 21, 2014, 07:00:26 PM
And of course, Vincent Thomas Lombardi, John Carroll, and George VI of England.
What makes George VI "great"? Simply being a monarch does not make you great. It just makes you famous/important.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 21, 2014, 11:23:33 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 21, 2014, 10:10:00 PM
Obviously the vices we seen in more modern politicians (outside the really off-the-reservation Hitlers/Stalins/Mao's) will be panty-waist stuff compared to the feudal, classical types.
We could only wish we had an LBJ in Congress now, berating the fuck out of that little shit Ted Cruz at the urinal, smacking McConnell and Reid like Stooges, driving Rand Paul to the point of tears over his perm, and showing Nancy Pelosi a Monster Cock That Moves Legislation By Its Very Presence.
Yes, in today's terminology, he was a pretty awesome political operator.
I think his heart was in the right place, but he messed up on a couple of issues.
Quote from: The Brain on December 22, 2014, 12:58:37 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 22, 2014, 01:38:47 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 21, 2014, 11:54:37 PM
Charles XII.
You're joking, right?
No. Are you?
He got a ton of Swedes killed and dragged out a campaign he wasn't going to win against an enemy Sweden had no hope of overcoming.
:lol:
Though I'm surprised that Spellus doesn't gush over him, actually. He had a very similar personality to Teddy Roosevelt, from what I can tell.
Hitler couldn't hurt a fly.
Quote from: Brezel on December 22, 2014, 01:29:50 PM
Hitler couldn't hurt a fly.
Because he was a vegetarian he is suddenly good people?
Quote from: The Brain on December 22, 2014, 01:31:39 PM
Because he was a vegetarian he is suddenly good people?
He loved dogs.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 22, 2014, 01:21:37 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 22, 2014, 12:58:37 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 22, 2014, 01:38:47 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 21, 2014, 11:54:37 PM
Charles XII.
You're joking, right?
No. Are you?
He got a ton of Swedes killed and dragged out a campaign he wasn't going to win against an enemy Sweden had no hope of overcoming.
He's as close to "great" as you are going to get in Sweden.
Great Northern War hijack? :mellow:
Is it possible to be great and not be an asshole?
Quote from: Siege on December 22, 2014, 04:34:32 PM
Is it possible to be great and not be an asshole?
Not sure, but it's definitely possible to be an asshole and be mediocre.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 21, 2014, 10:10:00 PM
Quote from: sbr on December 21, 2014, 10:06:28 PM
What's so bad about LBJ?
Not a murderer or psychopath, of course, but I always had the impression that LBJ was quite an asshole in person. Maybe he was just on par for being Texan, though. :P
Yeah, I've always had that impression as well. He sort of reminds me of my stepfather--a traditional southern Democrat in many ways, but unusually progressive on racial issues. And my stepfather was definitely an asshole.
Quote from: dps on December 23, 2014, 02:10:33 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 21, 2014, 10:10:00 PM
Quote from: sbr on December 21, 2014, 10:06:28 PM
What's so bad about LBJ?
Not a murderer or psychopath, of course, but I always had the impression that LBJ was quite an asshole in person. Maybe he was just on par for being Texan, though. :P
Yeah, I've always had that impression as well. He sort of reminds me of my stepfather--a traditional southern Democrat in many ways, but unusually progressive on racial issues. And my stepfather was definitely an asshole.
My favorite LBJ anecdote (which may, of course, be apocryphal) is one taught to me in trial advocacy class by a crusty old teacher.
Allegedly, LBJ was once running against another dude in Texas, when he instructed his hacks to spread the story that his opponent liked to fuck pigs.
"But that isn't true" said the hacks. :(
"Of course it isn't true - the whole point is to force the fucker to publicy deny it!" said LBJ. :D
Quote from: dps on December 23, 2014, 02:10:33 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 21, 2014, 10:10:00 PM
Quote from: sbr on December 21, 2014, 10:06:28 PM
What's so bad about LBJ?
Not a murderer or psychopath, of course, but I always had the impression that LBJ was quite an asshole in person. Maybe he was just on par for being Texan, though. :P
Yeah, I've always had that impression as well. He sort of reminds me of my stepfather--a traditional southern Democrat in many ways, but unusually progressive on racial issues. And my stepfather was definitely an asshole.
John Frankenheimer's last film was about LBJ and the march into war, well worth catching:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0218505/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0218505/)
One of his daughters in that film was played by a porn star. :cool:
Eugene Debs was pretty great and good.
Quote from: Malthus on December 23, 2014, 01:37:12 PM
My favorite LBJ anecdote (which may, of course, be apocryphal) is one taught to me in trial advocacy class by a crusty old teacher.
Allegedly, LBJ was once running against another dude in Texas, when he instructed his hacks to spread the story that his opponent liked to fuck pigs.
"But that isn't true" said the hacks. :(
"Of course it isn't true - the whole point is to force the fucker to publicy deny it!" said LBJ. :D
Nope, not true. It was posted as true here, but I showed it was made up about him.
Depends what you mean by "great people".
If it is successfully curing or creating vaccines for lethal diseases, helping the downrotten, or anything that doesn't involve making political choices for a collectivity, then yes it is possible. For instance I'd say Father Damien was a good person among great people, and even then I am sure Father Damien had ideas and opinions that we would find, in hindsight, reprehensible.
If it entains ruling, administrating, or carving a piece of an empire, then I'd dare to advance that those who have done it while remaining a morally good person are very few and far between, until the spread of liberal democracies. Power corrupts, and it is hard to separate personal morality from collective or political morality when one has tough choices that involves life and death, that could shake or cost the lives of individuals.
A piece on LBJ and MLK's relationship, and the new "Selma" movie--something that I think is getting lost in the recent negative revisionism of LBJ:
Quote
What 'Selma' Gets Wrong
LBJ and MLK were close partners in reform.
By MARK K. UPDEGROVE
December 22, 2014
For historians, watching a movie "based on" historical events often is an exercise in restraint. While the historian and filmmaker are both, by nature, storytellers, the former builds a narrative based on fact while the latter often bends truth for the sake of a story's arc or tempo. Historians are wise to resist their pedantic urges and yield to a film's creative license—as long as it doesn't compromise the essence of the subject at hand.
To that end, Paramount Pictures' ambitious "Selma," depicting the bloody civil rights campaign in Selma, Alabama, gets much right. The film humanizes Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the colossal burden he faced in 1965 leading a fractious movement that was so perilous for his flock. But "Selma" misses mightily in faithfully capturing the pivotal relationship—contentious, the film would have you believe—between King and President Lyndon Baines Johnson.
In the film, President Johnson resists King's pressure to sign a voting rights bill, which—according to the movie's take—is getting in the way of dozens of other Great Society legislative priorities. Indeed, "Selma's" obstructionist LBJ is devoid of any palpable conviction on voting rights. Vainglorious and power hungry, he unleashes his zealous pit bull, FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover, on King, who is determined to march in protest from Selma to Montgomery despite LBJ's warning that it will be "open season" on the protesters.
This characterization of the 36th president flies in the face of history. In truth, the partnership between LBJ and MLK on civil rights is one of the most productive and consequential in American history.
Yes, Johnson advocated stripping a potent voting rights component out of the historic Civil Rights Act he signed into law in the summer of 1964. A master of the legislative process—and a pragmatist—he knew that adding voting rights to the Civil Rights Act would make it top heavy, jeopardizing its passage. Break the back of Jim Crow, Johnson believed, and then we'll tackle voting rights.
And yes, King kept the pressure on Johnson to propose voting rights legislation. But Johnson, the political mastermind, knew instinctively that Congress would reject it. As King's former lieutenant, Andrew Young, recalled earlier this year at the LBJ Presidential Library's Civil Rights Summit: "Right after [Dr. King won] the Nobel Prize, President Johnson talked for an hour about why he didn't have the power to introduce voting rights legislation in 1965, and gave very good reasons. [H]e kept saying, 'I just don't have the power. I wish I did.' When we left, I asked Dr. King, 'Well, what did you think?' He said, 'I think we've got to figure out a way to get this president some power.'"
That's exactly what the President wanted—and that's what the Nobel Laureate did. And it's not a matter of opinion; it's a matter of archival record.
In a taped phone conversation between Johnson and King on January 15, 1965, the two spurred each other on. King pointed out that giving African-Americans unimpeded access to the ballot box in the Deep South would expand Johnson's electoral base. And Johnson encouraged King to wage a campaign that would expose the worst of voting oppression and create a moral imperative to pass the legislation. See for yourself:
MLK: It's very interesting, Mr. President, to notice that the only states you didn't carry in the South [in the 1964 presidential election], those five southern states, have less than forty percent of the Negroes registered to vote. I think it's just so important to get Negroes registered to vote in large numbers in the South. It will be this coalition of the Negro vote and the moderate vote that will really make the New South.
LBJ: That's exactly right. I think you can contribute a great deal by getting your leaders, and you yourself, taking very simple examples of discrimination... If you can find the worst condition that you run into in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, or South Carolina—well, I think one of the worst I ever heard of was the president of a school at Tuskegee, or head of the Government department there or something, being denied the right to cast a vote. If you just take that one illustration and get it on radio, get it on television, get in the pulpits, get it in the meetings, get it every place you can; pretty soon, the fellow that didn't do anything but drive a tractor will say, "that's not right, that's not fair." And then, that'll help us in what we're going to shove [legislation] through in the end.
MLK: You're exactly right about that.
LBJ: And if we do that, we'll break through—it'll be the greatest breakthrough of anything, not even excepting the '64 Act... because it'll do things even that '64 Act couldn't do.[/i]
LBJ used the crisis of Selma to compel reluctant lawmakers to pass the Voting Rights Act, which he signed into law on August 6, 1965.
Why does the film's mischaracterization matter? Because at a time when racial tension is once again high, from Ferguson to Brooklyn, it does no good to bastardize one of the most hallowed chapters in the Civil Rights Movement by suggesting that the President himself stood in the way of progress.
The political courage President Johnson exhibited in adeptly pushing through passage of the Voting Rights Act 50 years ago is worth celebrating in the same manner as the "Lincoln" filmmakers championed President Lincoln's passage of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, putting a legal end to slavery.
Four American presidents—President Obama and former presidents George W. Bush, Clinton and Carter—bore testimony to LBJ's efforts at the Civil Rights Summit, where President Obama, in his keynote address, asserted, "Like Dr. King, like Abraham Lincoln, like countless citizens who have driven this country inexorably forward, President Johnson knew that ours in the end is a story of optimism, a story of achievement and constant striving that is unique upon this earth...He believed that together we can build an America that is more fair, more equal, and more free than the one we inherited."
LBJ's bold position on voting rights stands as an example of what is possible when America's leadership is at its best.
And it has the added benefit of being true.
Mark K. Updegrove is a presidential historian, the author of Indomitable Will: LBJ in the Presidency, and the director of the L.B.J. Presidential Library and Museum.
Quote from: Martinus on December 22, 2014, 01:34:01 AM
Quote from: Scipio on December 21, 2014, 07:00:26 PM
And of course, Vincent Thomas Lombardi, John Carroll, and George VI of England.
What makes George VI "great"? Simply being a monarch does not make you great. It just makes you famous/important.
George VI aided in the dismantling of the British Empire, and furthered devolution to the nations of the Commonwealth. His fascist-friendly older brother would've been a bulwark against the dismantling of the Empire, fighting it at every turn.
Also him and his dad did a decent amount in making constitutional monarchy adapt to socialism. George V's favourite PM was MacDonald and Attlee famously wept when told George VI had died.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 23, 2014, 11:36:56 PM
A piece on LBJ and MLK's relationship, and the new "Selma" movie--something that I think is getting lost in the recent negative revisionism of LBJ:
Another thing about LBJ is that the Great society was not quite the failure that it's often depicted as. Poverty rates declined rather dramatically in the 1960's.
Lies.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 26, 2014, 05:27:53 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 23, 2014, 11:36:56 PM
A piece on LBJ and MLK's relationship, and the new "Selma" movie--something that I think is getting lost in the recent negative revisionism of LBJ:
Another thing about LBJ is that the Great society was not quite the failure that it's often depicted as. Poverty rates declined rather dramatically in the 1960's.
That's because the poor were drafted into Vietnam and subsequently paid for their service (if they survived). :)
Uh, no.
You have to admit, 2.5 million US military personnel had to have put a sizable dent in unemployment.
I'm going to go way out on a limb and guess it's because large numbers of poor people were given money.