How can we have meaningful discussions about race when as soon as someone crosses a perceived line, that speech is silenced?
Parker is ignorant. But he is not a lone voice. His opinions reflect a subculture of the black community. Let his his stupidity see the light of day and be exposed for the ignorance and backward mentality it represents.
Sunlight is the great disinfectant. By squashing the discussion you just let this view fester underground.
The list appears to have a strong ancient bias, where documentation is very very thin (often bordering on legend), claims of army sizes and terretorial gains and control are often wildly overstated, and where War was far less all-encompassing as it is in the more modern mechanized warfare era. Ashoka for example, is not in the same ballpark in almost any quantifyable way (other than lenth of time of rule, of course) to Hitler and the Nazi Reich.
You're not the only one who is rabid for History, bro. You may want to consider that something like "Greatest Conqueror" is a subjective question, for example our obvious disagreement over Stalin as a Conqueror, and my criticism of the list is not a criticism of you personally for having posted the list.
Last edited by Warfish; 12-14-2012 at 04:31 PM.
Got to disagree. Not sure where you get the theory of " wild overstatement" of army size and territorial gains. Alexander the Great was with no dispute among historians considered among the greatest military minds ever. And I'm not sure I understand how war was "far less encompassing" in an age where armies had to travel without planes, trains, trucks, radio communication, or even roads. Alexander the Great conquered, and held, an empire... with horses, elephants, and the like. A much greater feat than an age where any 18 year old boy can be made into a deadly soldier by handing him a rifle or putting him in a Tank.
Hitler, Hirohito, and Napoleon all had very short-lived successes. They basically each started a war and eventually lost that war. Unlike the 3 you point to ATG didn't lose a war. Great Conqueror labels can NOT be given to those that are themselves conquered. It took death to end ATG's reign.
As to Stalin, I never considered him a conqueror of anything. He subjugated his own people.
If you need a specific one, I'd cite the Indian Emperor Ashoka. I would remove him and put Hitler in his place, based on my rather limited knowledge of his time and empire.
You're an avid reader of history Sonny, and far FAR smarter than I. I know you're aware that the exploits of many of teh pre-AD Empires and leaders are as much legend as they are documented and verified facts. Historians of those times (even through the Roman Empire) often were very non-specific or even strait out fictitious in their histories.Not sure where you get the theory of " wild overstatement" of army size and territorial gains.
A great example, the Romans defeat of the Caledonains and their leader Calgacus at Mons Graupius is one such tale, told by the historian Tacitus. Tacitus places in Calgacus's mouth a rather noble and Braveheartian speech. The speech is almost surely pure fiction, the mountain (Mons Grapius) cannot be located today, the description of the battle rather thin, and the description of army sizes is commonly beleieved to be quite overstated.
This was in AD 84, in the relatively well-documented Roman Empire. Now, you're not going to tell me Emperors and battles and armies of the 500+ BC were better documented, or more accurate and even-handed in their descriptions, and not equally caught up in their flair for drama and deification of the Emperors they describe, are you?
Objective history that is truly objective is a somewhat recent trend IMO. Historians or ancient times were as much storytellers and propagandists for their leaders as they were historians. Doesn't mean they were wrong, just that one has to factor in that aspect.
Aye, agreed. Like I said, should have cited Ashoka not Alexander in my original post. Wasn't trying to be specific, just expalin why I felt the list was cheapened by ignoring moden war and modern conquorors.Alexander the Great was with no dispute among historians considered among the greatest military minds ever.
War in modern times engages every aspect of the Nation States that participate. Total war, with entire populations and economies involved, and mass destruction on scales unfathomable in previous eras. War in ancient times was not so universally encompassing.And I'm not sure I understand how war was "far less encompassing" in an age where armies had to travel without planes, trains, trucks, radio communication, or even roads
Certainly civillian populations could suffer and did suffer (generally selective or universal slavery, some mass killing too of course). But generally, the army sizes were vastly too small to police the empires they took over (later follow-up leaders may have, but the conquorors themselves did not), and civillian populations were less impacted (less being a relative term of course).
Agree to disagree to a very small degree. While he certainly faced a few decently equipped and equitablearmies/opponents in his victories, most of what he conquored was effectively undefended civillian territory, millitarily, with a few very key battles and alot of undefended space. Walking past a village, saying "I own you now" then trotting past without leaving anyone to watch over that village is hardly what I'd call conquoring or even holding.Alexander the Great conquered, and held, an empire... with horses, elephants, and the like. A much greater feat than an age where any 18 year old boy can be made into a deadly soldier by handing him a rifle or putting him in a Tank.
Again, agree to disagree to a small degree. Holding is seperate from conquoring. It took the combined might of the Soviet Union, Great Britan and the United States (and what was left of Poland and France) to defeat Germany, and even then it was only Hitler egotistical blunders that led to defeat. Alexander suffered no equivalent massed-superiors opposition on that level, he took on his opponents one by one on one front geenrally. Unlike Hitler, who took over a completely defeated and unarmed nation, Alexander took over from his father Phillip, no wimp himself, and inherited Phillip's armies, experienced and capable.Hitler, Hirohito, and Napoleon all had very short-lived successes. They basically each started a war and eventually lost that war. Unlike the 3 you point to ATG didn't lose a war. Great Conqueror labels can NOT be given to those that are themselves conquered. It took death to end ATG's reign.
The Poles, Belorussians, Latvians, Ukrainians etc, etc, etc, would beg to differ. All depends on what you consider conquoring and if it has to be purely millitary, or also partly political (or in this case geopolitical, with the allies feeble aquiesence). I'm a little biased on this one, I think generally the U.S. has a very poor understanding of the true evil perpetrated under Stalin frankly.As to Stalin, I never considered him a conqueror of anything. He subjugated his own people.
This is the strangest race related thread I've ever seen...
Talking millitary history with a mind like Sonny? That **** is exciting. Like having a one-on-one with college history prof tbqh.
To each their own I guess, lol. Racism! Sharpton! Bratha! Uncle Tom! Danny Woodhead! Wargabrl! There, now I referenced the OP on-topic.
This clown clearly is jealous that he isnt RG3, cause if he was , he would swag like Iverson, thats what i get out of his mumbo jumbo.
He is representing his race in a positive fashion not a 'white way' and one of his own has to publicly call him out for not being thuggish? As if thats the way the elders who suffered for their civil rights want the race to be represented.
Just ugly jealousy. What a clown.
Originally Posted by bgivs21 View Post
Stalin wasn't really a conqueror per-se. He killed a lot of his own people more so than destroying a whole race on his way world domination.
We can argue all day, but bottom line is we can go through every culture throughout history and find terrible, evil rulers/conquerors who have left massive body counts for world domination.
But Genghis Kahn is by far the worst. He killed nearly 40 million people, 4 times more than Hitler. In fact, Nazi Germany's blitzkrieg was a modern form of warfare that Genghis Kahn himself developed in 12th and 13th century.
Have no idea who Genghis Kahn is but if you're referring to the great Khan, Temujin, also know as Genghis Khan,estimates range from 20 to 50 million, depending on which historical lense you use.
Stalin ,on the other hand, has been identified as the greatest mass murderer of the modern era with a known body count of twenty six million and a probable figure exceeding SIXTY million.
Temujin was a warrior living in a violent era of tribal conflict. He slaughtered whole tribes as a means of bringing some semblance of order to the chaos of the era.This is genocide by any standard, but before he brought order there was an untold era of indiscriminate tribal warfare that ran up body cvounts in the hundreds of millions in Central Asia.
Stalin was a mass murderer....far greater than Adolph Hitler. He committed genocide to enforce his own tyrannical powerbase. Pure evil.
I've been an amateur atrocity buff for years like you and Sonny....here's a very good read, well researched, that covers a lot of ground in the genre...
lol @ the ESPN article announcing Parker's suspension.