Name an admired historical figure.Explain why.

**King Solomon** · 08-31-2009, 05:51 PM

no it doesn't, it just means you didn't see it. Mine were long so i understand.

**TPUK** · 08-31-2009, 05:58 PM

Captain Lawrence Edward Grace Oates (17 March 1880 – 16 March 1912)

This man's courage and self sacrifice has always been an inspiration to me

For anyone who doesn't know brief summary taken from Wikpedia below

(was an English Antarctic explorer. He was often referred to by the nickname "Titus Oates" after the historical figure. Oates is known for his honorable suicide when, aware his ill-health was compromising his companions' lives, he told them "I am just going outside and may be some time" before walking out into a blizzard.)

**~~bob19991~~** · 08-31-2009, 07:04 PM

The first of many:

Isaac Asimov, one of the 3 generators of the Science Fiction genre, along with Arthur C. Clarke, and the 3rd, who I have not yet read any of his books..
Asimov wrote the I, Robot series, in which the famous 3 laws of robotics are written, and the Foundation series, in which the Zeroth law was added, and the basic failing-empire, new seed was started.

**~~∆nonymous~~** · 08-31-2009, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by Milonius

Napoleon Bonaparte is my favorite historical figure. Here's just a little bit of info, comin' right from ma brain...in bullet point.

- Helped end the siege of Toulon by having his men charge to the top of the hill where the British battery was, and then slaughtering the British troops. He then had them use the battery to fire upon the British ships, forcing them to leave.

- Stopped a riot at the Tuileries Palace by firing a cannon into the crowd.

- Became a Brigadier General at the age of 25.

- Defeated three different armies in Italy with his small army of around 40,000.

- Staged a coup d'etat, later crowning himself Emperor of France.

- Introduced the Napoleonic Code, which has effects that can be seen even today.

- Expanded the French Empire to cover a large portion of Western Europe during his reign.
- He was unfairly defeated by the coalition against France. He was exiled to Elba.

- He returned for 100 days but was then unfairly defeated again at the Battle of Waterloo. He was exiled to St. Helena.

How can one be defeated unfairly? There are no cheat codes- and back then, there were no rules- for war. You can defeat someone sneakily, or unethically, or underhandedly, but not unfairly.

**Wildor** · 08-31-2009, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by ∆nonymous

How can one be defeated unfairly? There are no cheat codes- and back then, there were no rules- for war. You can defeat someone sneakily, or unethically, or underhandedly, but not unfairly.

I admit the question occured to me as well... This was war, as in "All's fair in...".

I'm sure Milo will take the opportunity to expand on this.

**Milonius** · 08-31-2009, 09:02 PM

First, during the Battle of Leipzig (AKA the Battle of Nations), he was defeated by the GIANT coalition of Russia, Prussia, Austria, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, Sicily, and Sardinia. It was 430,000 vs only about 200,000. He fled back to Paris, and they chased him.

Second, during the Battle of Waterloo, just as Napoleon was about to win, Gebhard von Blucher came in and reinforced the Duke of Wellington, allowing him to win.

I call those two losses unfair.

**~~∆nonymous~~** · 08-31-2009, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by Milonius

First, during the Battle of Leipzig (AKA the Battle of Nations), he was defeated by the GIANT coalition of Russia, Prussia, Austria, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, Sicily, and Sardinia. It was 430,000 vs only about 200,000. He fled back to Paris, and they chased him.

Second, during the Battle of Waterloo, just as Napoleon was about to win, Gebhard von Blucher came in and reinforced the Duke of Wellington, allowing him to win.

I call those two losses unfair.

Because he was outnumbered? If he couldn't deal with being outnumbered, he couldn't have been much of a commander. Troops attacking a well-entrenched, well-supported enemy take losses at a 3:1 ratio. If he had made good tactical decisions, as his supposed military genius should have allowed him to do, he would have won.

**~~Sephiroth X~~** · 08-31-2009, 09:17 PM

Originally Posted by ∆nonymous

Because he was outnumbered? If he couldn't deal with being outnumbered, he couldn't have been much of a commander. Troops attacking a well-entrenched, well-supported enemy take losses at a 3:1 ratio. If he had made good tactical decisions, as his supposed military genius should have allowed him to do, he would have won.

I always agree with you for some reason.