Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Proclus

Historical criticism: "Moving" dates & places

83 posts in this topic

I doubt it. More likely he'll be seen alot like many see Vlad Tepes, the original Count Dracula. Cruel and barbaric in his punishment against others.

cormac

I dont. Im sure. I like Vlad Tepes. Why? Because he fought on same side as my ancestors. Against Turks. Since I dont know none impaled Turk my sympathy goes on his side.

Persians also seen Alexander as cruel and barbaric.

Guals also seen Casear as cruel and barbaric.

You think that lives of Jews worth more then lives or Iranians or French people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont. Im sure. I like Vlad Tepes. Why? Because he fought on same side as my ancestors. Against Turks. Since I dont know none impaled Turk my sympathy goes on his side.

Persians also seen Alexander as cruel and barbaric.

Guals also seen Casear as cruel and barbaric.

You think that lives of Jews worth more then lives or Iranians or French people?

No, I think that how an historical person is seen depends on ones perspective. And while I can understand Vlad's attacks against the Turks, impaling people does qualify IMO as both cruel and barbaric. The same can't be said for Hitler, who had no justification for singling out the Jews.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I think that how an historical person is seen depends on ones perspective. And while I can understand Vlad's attacks against the Turks, impaling people does qualify IMO as both cruel and barbaric. The same can't be said for Hitler, who had no justification for singling out the Jews.

cormac

But were Romans cruel and Barbaric? People nailed on crosses? Spanish inquistion is legacy of Roman empire. I guess that tells all.

I cant justify Hitler too. Neither Vlad. Neither Alexander. Neither Caesar. Alexander burned Persopolis. He was killing machine. He wanted to conquer world for himself. Same thing for Temujin. And as time pass we see him in different light. (For example Temujin and Mongols are realy AMAZING in my opinion). We stick to Alexander how he spread Hellenism. Forgeting massacres he did. Because he bring civilization to Iran. That balanced things. But he didnt bring civilization to Iran. Its our (not mine) perception. What he did was selfish.

He conquer land for his own good. Did Persians have had life looking statues? No they didnt. But they were civilized. Persia was civilization before Alexander ruined it. We see him as contributor to our todays society. He built Alexandria. And greatest library of all. But he also cut people heads as nobody business. I personally adore Mongols. Even I knew Temujin and his two greatest generals killed millions, Turks, Iranians, Europeans, Chinese. I adore Hannibal too and his battle-materpiece at Cannae. But thats because I dont know any dead Roman or any dead Chinese or Russian or Georgian. Even if I was Russian I wouldnt have anti Mongolian attidute because I would not be emotinoaly linked with fallen ancestor in 1223 at Kalka river. No one cry for people died 500 years ago, 1000 years ago or 2000 years ago. I dont know any dead Turks impaled by Vlad so I like Vlad because as person who study history I seen his actions as psychological warfare. I REALY could wrote a book about strategy and tactics by Mongols. They psychological warfare was also brutal. But like there is a nice psychologial warfare? Look recent wars. Iraq and Iran. West and rest of world ignore on Saddam usage of Nerve gas against Iranians/Kurds. Because that was in interest of west. Even help him to produce WMD. Why Caesar conquer Celts? For money and political power in Rome. Selfish reasons. And we ,I guess because of his calendar, think that he bring civilization to France. Forgeting all dead Celts. Forgeting Alesia. And now casear is hero. Because of propaganda. Rome conquer world with defensive wars. Propaganda. Now historians when talk about Temujin spoke as there was need that he appears on scence. And conquer all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give Hitler enough time and someone will ask, lets see what are good things he did? Beside that humanity seen first object in space because of Nazi Germany.

I agree that he was cruel. That he was monster. All his regime. I knew only one worst ruler then Hitler was. But you got ask yourself.

How many Persians deaths worth spread of Hellenism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I think that how an historical person is seen depends on ones perspective. And while I can understand Vlad's attacks against the Turks, impaling people does qualify IMO as both cruel and barbaric. The same can't be said for Hitler, who had no justification for singling out the Jews.

Hm, this depends, within his mad world view Hitler indeed had reasons. Mad reasons, but reasons. Did the communists have sound reasons to kill priests and land owners? Well ... well ... I don't want wo imply an answer with this question, it is an open question! (You know my method :-)

_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm, this depends, within his mad world view Hitler indeed had reasons. Mad reasons, but reasons. Did the communists have sound reasons to kill priests and land owners? Well ... well ... I don't want wo imply an answer with this question, it is an open question! (You know my method :-)

You did beat me to it. I was about to say that Hitler did have some reasons, but rather mad ones at that. As to communism, you could also ask the reasons for Mao to kill so many intellectuals and educated people in China, same thing. The reasons might seem mad to us, but I'm sure, that at the time they were convinced they were just.

Don't understand me wrong, I don't any of the reasons they might have given or had, but I see your reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You did beat me to it. I was about to say that Hitler did have some reasons, but rather mad ones at that. As to communism, you could also ask the reasons for Mao to kill so many intellectuals and educated people in China, same thing. The reasons might seem mad to us, but I'm sure, that at the time they were convinced they were just.

Don't understand me wrong, I don't any of the reasons they might have given or had, but I see your reasoning.

Back to Plato and Atlantis:

The point is that also Plato had some views which we today would call crazy, so we do not believe that Plato thought this way. And therefore we do misinterpretations of his texts, because we miss the real intention. One major example is Plato's idea of cyclical catastrophism. So many times when it comes to Plato's Atlantis we can read that Plato "invented" the 9000 years to indicate a "fabled past" ... well, not true. To the contrary Plato really thought in such dimensions of times and history. When not talking about Atlantis but other parts of Plato's works, this is almost common sense among Classicists.

What do we learn by this? That Atlantis was real?

No, not yet, this claim is too big to be corrobated by this. (And let me add: If it existed then surely not 9600 BC as Plato believed but much later). But at least we can disproof the all-too simple counter-argument of an "invention of a fabled past". (And this disproval, isn't this the application of a typical scientific method? Is text interpretation not following scientific methods?!)

_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I think that how an historical person is seen depends on ones perspective. And while I can understand Vlad's attacks against the Turks, impaling people does qualify IMO as both cruel and barbaric. The same can't be said for Hitler, who had no justification for singling out the Jews.

cormac

Hitler justified the killing of the Jews based on his hypothesis of the superiority of the Aryan Race which was inturn based on suggestions by imperialistic british historians.

All conquerors from any part of the world who invaded an other people,their neighbours for no other reason but their lust for supremacy were terrible and despicable people.They represent the worst and darkest side of our human nature...sadly many of these genocidal ego-maniacs are still glorified as great leaders of the world....a few in the list....Alexander the Macedeonian Narcissist and Despot....Caesar the imperialist Roman Egomaniac,Murderer and Dictator......Genghis Khan needs no words........

Hope we as humans atleast in current times have the clarity of ethics and morals to recognise the crimes perpetrated by these so called greats.....none of them were any better then Hitler or his likes.....

The historical glorifications of such despicable inhuman acts have spawned many modern dictators and genocidal egomaniacs who have often sought to compare themselves with these historical murderers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.