this post was submitted on
251 points (86% like it)
296 up votes 45 down votes

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!

top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]Anonymous3542 21 points22 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Attila the Hun. The Romans demonized him to rally support against him, but he wasn't as brutal as he was portrayed. He single-handedly brought the Huns to a state of dominance in Europe, initiated the fall of the Western Roman Empire by taking over almost all of it, took over almost the entire Eastern Roman Empire save for Constantinople, and actually fought amongst his men, unlike modern generals. He also had respect for his enemies. He treated Flavius Aetius, the general who fought against him, almost like a brother, especially because both of them had some experience in each others cultures (Aetius lived with the Huns for a time, while Attila lived in Ravenna). Legend has it that Attila was convinced by Pope Leo to turn back when it seemed his invasion of Rome seemed imminent, out of respect for religion.

[–]PrincessofCats 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Terry Jones did a great series of historical documentaries called 'The Barbarians' that could very well have been titled 'FUCK ROME JUST FUCK THEM OMG THEY ARE SUCH ASSHOLES', because before the end of each episode, that's what I'd be shouting at the TV.

I seem to recall that the Huns were one of the barbarians covered.

[–]Seefor 20 points21 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

King Christian IV of Denmark, who ruled from 1588-1648, and is probably our most famous king.

In Denmark he is known for building many of the landmarks and famous buildings in Copenhagen, but also got a very bad rep for losing wars left and right and in the end building up a huge amount of debt.

However, the man was just plain unlucky most of the time. When he joined the Thirty Years War on the Protestant side he had been promised considerable financial and military aid by France, the Netherlands and England, which never materialised.

And then the Swedes took over, and after enjoying great succes in Germany, decided that it would be fun to sweep up through Jutland in Denmark and lay waste to the Danish armies and cities.

[–]elpinoine 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Norwegians refer to Denmark's rule as "the four-hundred year night", but that's a debatable misnomer. Christian IV is awesome though for founding Kongberg and the silver mines, which is one of my favourite places :)

[–]pearlysoames 72 points73 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

John Brown

History books have taken such great pains to paint him as crazy or not of sound mind, when everyone who ever met him said he was of sound mind and great integrity. A strong revision of the way America looks at John Brown and historical race relations in general would go a long way to soothe some of the racial tension that is still very much a part of the fabric of our society today.

[–]tkilgore 21 points22 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Kansas checking in.

We consider him a hero, our state capital is adorned with paintings of Brown. While I can't always stand for his actions, people from Lawrence (the free-state capital at the time) will always be proud for what he stood for. The Bleeding Kansas era prior to the Civil War was an important part of our history, and we stand behind and fondly remember John Brown's fight.

[–]diana_mn 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

His zeal in the cause of freedom was infinitely superior to mine... Mine was as the taper light; his was as the burning sun. I could live for the slave; John Brown could die for him. - Frederick Douglass

[–]jealoussea 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think, vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might be done."

John Brown is one of my favorite historical figures period; he just happens to be shown in a negative light as well.

[–]bretherenconrad 57 points58 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Emma Goldman! While she may have influenced the assassination of William McKinley her progressive views were amazing because they went against just about everything that is wrong in society ~30 years before the counter cultures of the 50's and 60's. I wish everyone would stop ignoring her just because she had anarchist perspectives, she was more than an anarchist.

[–]mexicodoug 5 points6 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In Emma's autobiography Living My Life she claims that Leon Czolgosz (the killer of McKinley) just days before the assassination came to see her and told her he wanted to kill McKinley and she did what she could to convince him that killing a president would not change the oppressive system at all and would probably only strengthen it.

Czolgosz ignored her advice and went ahead with his decision to kill the President. As anyone who is familiar with back stories on today's mass media will recognize, the capitalist media back then blamed Emma, the famous anarchist, for the actions of Czolgosz, the until-then unknown anarchist, and most people believed the media no matter how absurd its claims.

"Red Emma" Goldman didn't simply have "anarchist perspectives," she remains the number one spokesperson for communist anarchism. She was indeed more than an anarchist, she was a lover of various men, a professional theater critic, editor of the magazine Mother Earth, writer, speaker, and much more.

But first and foremost, Red Emma was an anarchist.

[–]samh785 13 points14 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I wish they'd stop ignoring her for that reason too, but because she correctly realized that there isn't anything wrong with anarchism.

[–]oddmanout 114 points115 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

James K. Polk. Most underrated president ever. He accomplished everything he set out to do in his first term and didn't even bother running for a second. It was astounding the amount he could accomplish. If every president was like him, we'd have moon-bases by now.

[–]falconear 15 points16 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Hey, he was good enough to be the subject of a They Might Be Giants song.

[–]Tonkatsu 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]OldManSimms 25 points26 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Upvote for liking Polk, but I don't know if he really fits the "negative light" part. He's usually just forgotten about, unless people get up in arms about the Mexican War and manifest destiny or whatever.

[–]BTulip 33 points34 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

i wrote my undergraduate thesis on Polk, the guy was an asshole. He got shit done though. He effectively set up the war with Mexico which led to the acquisition of the land mass west of Texas to the coast. He also lied about it the whole way.

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I will always remember which numerical President he was because my high school history teacher, at an all-boys catholic school (only way he could get away with this), taught us mnemonics for the Presidents.

11 was Evelyn. You were to imagine a well endowed woman with her name on her t-shirt. You want to "Polk" her.

James Polk was the 11th President, and I will never forget that.

[–]edubation 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What was Chester A Arthur?

[–]whatevrmn 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The school that was targeted in Die Hard 3. Or at least how I'll remember him.

[–]l00pee 35 points36 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He is cool, but it depends on your perspective. Pretty sure Native Americans aren't big fans.

[–]Evenstars 40 points41 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Is there an American president that Native Americans are fans of?

[–]l00pee 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thats a fair point, but polk really embraced manifest destiny. Mexicans don't like him very much either. America as we know it was almost singlehandedley shaped by this man, especially with regards to territory in the sw.

[–]Cosmic_Charlie 13 points14 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

My lecture on the origins of the Civil War is titled "The Civil War: Blame James Polk." The Mexican-American War brought into stark relief the problem of slavery (or, to be more accurate, the expansion of slavery.)

[–]Advent667 64 points65 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

hmmm kind of hard to think of one... I would probably say Napoleon, people view him as a moron for going into russia, a warmonger for cutting through europe but he brought social change and education to the nations he went through. he helped pull peasants up by their bootstraps.

[–]bopollo 45 points46 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And the myth that he was short persists so well that we've created a whole meme about it!

The British Tory press sometimes depicted Napoleon as much smaller than average height, and this image persists. Confusion about his height also results from the difference between the French pouce and British inch—2.71 and 2.54 cm respectively; he was about 1.7 metres (5 ft 7 in) tall, average height for the period.[note 13][157] wiki

[–]zimm0who0net 25 points26 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Napoleon is interesting in that he's pretty universally despised outside of France, and pretty universally admired inside France.

Growing up one of my best friends was a French exchange student. At 15 we were both the product of our local cultures and education. When we first talked about Napoleon he found it absolutely stunning that there were people in the world who didn't believe Napoleon was a great man. I found it equally as stunning that there were people in the world who didn't think he was a monster...

[–]tach 19 points20 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Napoleon is interesting in that he's pretty universally despised in the anglosphere, and pretty universally admired inside France.

FTFY.

[–]zimm0who0net 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Interesting. Are you saying that the Germans, Italians and Russians tend to admire Napoleon also?

[–]tach 28 points29 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The monster baby eating propaganda puppet is pretty much an anglosaxon phenomenon. The rest of the world just considers him a common warlord, typical of the era.

For example, I'm Uruguayan.

In 1804, while we were at peace, England in an act of piracy seized the gold and silver of the River Plate that was being transported back to Spain, killing near 200 civilians in the process.

In 1806, England tried to invade us and Buenos Aires. Twice. We kicked their sorry limey asses back to England. Same shit as Napoleon, who invaded our mother country.

Somehow, those two incidents are never mentioned by the english hagiographers. Sharpe never had to surrender at Buenos Aires to a rabble of angry Criollos. And the english captains always were white knights.

So, colour us sceptical of British propaganda. Somehow, they're always fighting against baby-bayonette-impaling monsters.

Edit: added action at Cabo Santa Maria, and corrected peace status at the time of the british invasion attempts.

[–]JaseFace 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I dunno, here in America, at least among military circles, Napoleon is generally seen as a genius commander aside from his invasion of Russia (nevermind that he actually took Moscow)

[–]zimm0who0net 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

TIL Napoleon actually took Moscow...

[–]brunswick 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah, that was kind of a turning point in his invasion. Took it but then had to do a massive retreat.

[–]nerga[S] 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

To view Napoleon as a moron is just an idiot thing I think. hindsight is 20/20, and yeah, maybe he shouldn't have went into Russia then, or went in march or something so he wouldn't free to death (I think it was september when he left, I am not sure, but it was late in the year). But Napoleon was a brilliant commander. I read somewhere once that Napoleon was "worth 40,000 men on the battlefield" because he was such a brilliant commander.

[–]Astroloach 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Actually, I believe Weelington is supposed to have said that Napoleon's hat was worth 50,000 men on the battlefield. So, I guess that means with his hat on, he's worth at least 50,001.

[–]PrincessofCats 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Actually, he went into Russia very early, with the idea that he would GTFO before winter kicked in. But the Russians knew that their country was very, very, VERY large, and so they kept fading away before the French army, baiting them deeper and deeper in. And Napoleon never wised up and decided to turn around. His army got smaller and smaller because he had to leave people behind guarding supply lines, so that didn't help.

Up until then, he'd been feeding the ENORMOUS French army by fighting wars during the harvest season -- people would just take whatever they needed to eat from the fields they passed. But even when the harvest season finally came (and he was STILL in Russia), the Russians started slashing and burning the ground behind them as they went.

So he figured 'Hey, I'll take Moscow, take over, and winter there, then get back to kicking Russian ass when Spring comes.' But THAT didn't work either, because the Russians fled Moscow ahead of his army and took all the food with them.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Napoleon was not sitting as pretty as he's made out to be. He was, at the time, completely hamstrung by the British who were in total control of the sea. He was trying to starve them out by enforcing a total embargo, but people kept deciding to break it. That's why he went into Russia -- they were selling food to the British. In the wars before that, they hadn't even really been active participants. That had mostly been England, Prussia, and Austria.

So either what he did was monumentally stupid (no direct threat posed to him, HUGE risk going into such a vast, inhospitable territory, not turning around when it was becoming clear that he was being drawn in and winter was coming on), or else he was aware that in time, the British were going to take him down if he didn't strangle them first, which would have made the Russian campaign desperation.

[–]KhanTengri 38 points39 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Same. Otto Von Bismarck. He also invented a machine to smoke 4 cigars at once and regularly ate several chickens and drank several bottles of champagne for lunch.

[–]BenOfTomorrow 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

His foreign policy was so good that after he was dismissed as Chancellor, Germany proceeded to screw up the whole world for the better part of a century.

[–]seagoatpltn 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I didn't know Bismark was one of Mr. Fox's nemeses!

[–]Bindlestiff 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And he was deeply affected by his experience in the war against Austria. Like later Soviet leaders who too well remembered WWII, he did not play the war card idly or with enthusiasm.

[–]philiac 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

John C. Calhoun

[–]depanneur 113 points114 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Leon Trotsky. Not only was the guy a brilliant political theoretician, but he actually managed to put his ideas into practice; before he joined the Bolsheviks he was elected leader of the Petrograd Soviet, and after was the Commisar for International Affairs, signing for peace with the Entente. During the Civil War he founded the Red Army and led it to victory against armies from 14 countries (Britain, France, USA, Japan etc.), the White Russian forces and later the Ukrainian Anarchists. After the rise of Stalin, the Soviet government considered him the most dangerous man to their power and finally assassinated him after he banged Frida Kahlo.

I think his life is part inspiring and part tragic; he was killed by the very country he helped create, and fought against Stalinism until the day he died. When he got the icepick to the head, apparently he then wrestled with his assassin before his bodyguards took him away.

[–]Toms_R 28 points29 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He was also responsible for the attack on Kronstadt

[–]depanneur 34 points35 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And then wrote a pamphlet taking responsibility for it and explaining why the attack was carried out even though he did not personally command it. There aren't many politicians who have taken so much personal responsibility for unpopular decisions they have made.

[–]Toms_R 17 points18 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And that pamphlet was duly answered by Emma Goldman, also try reading Maurice Brinton on the subject. And there are other good critics of him and even the ICC criticizes him: 1 2

[–]depanneur 12 points13 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm not saying what happened at Kronstadt was a good thing, but the fact that Trotsky took personal responsibility for it despite the fact he wasn't even present for the insurrection or its suppression makes him an admirable politician.

[–]Toms_R 14 points15 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Personal responsibility, the article is full of jabs at the Kronstadt sailors and takes very creative liberties with the strike in Petrogad, that is deeply relevant to the series of events, to have his position seem reasonable. The text doesn't read as an assumption of responsibility, but an argument as to why he's being criticized for an "old" event, not to mention that his official magazine went on to publish articles on how he wasn't to blame and practicably wasn't involved. That doesn't seem like something admirable to me

[–]Absurd_Cam 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

See, I'm a huge Nestor Makhno fan. Without the Black Army, Trotsky would've been fucked. Trotsky specifically stabbed him in the back after they'd agreed to live and let live.

[–]IncipitTragoedia 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Why was his attack on the Ukrainian anarchists a positive trait? Also, he butchered the workers and sailors at Kronstadt because they wouldn't cede their soviet power to the centralized bureaucracy. "All power to the Soviets!...not!"

[–]Kardlonoc 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't think its a bad rap necessarily but Erich Hartmann never gets enough attention for being basically the best ace of all time. I mean you can make one of helluva movie out of this guy but nobody seems too interested while the "red baron" is somehow the bees knees.

[–]Geekx 31 points32 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

William Tecumseh Sherman - I live in the south now and they still hate him with a passion down here. :)

[–]PrincessofCats 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

My father is from Tennessee and he really grew to detest the ugliness that he saw in the culture there (he came of age during the civil rights movement). And when I say 'detest', I mean 'detest to the tune of moving to California with pretty much nothing, just to be as damn far away as possible'. When he taught me about the Civil War, his depiction of Sherman was almost godlike. I was genuinely surprised to hear that he was reviled anywhere.

Looking back, I suspect my father just wishes it could have been HIM. :P

But yeah -- Sherman was awesome.

[–]bobosaurs 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Many upvotes for this. He was my favorite before I started to attend UA, and still is.

[–]LaCroix13 38 points39 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Edward the Longshanks was demonized in Braveheart but was actually a great leader and made many large advancements in society, culture, and politics.

[–]nerga[S] 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Eleanor of Castile died on 28 November 1290. Uncommon for such >marriages of the period, the couple loved each other. Moreover like his >father, Edward was very devoted to his queen and was faithful to her >throughout their married lives—a rarity among monarchs of the time. >He was deeply affected by her death.

This made me laugh, all of the exceptions.

[–]imbcmdth 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"You're supposed to, you dumb motherfucker! What kind of ignorant shit is that? 'I love my queen!' What do you want, a cookie?! You're not supposed to hate your wife, you low-expectation-having motherfucker!"

Christopher Rock III, 1287

[–]WedgeHead 30 points31 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Lucius Cornelius Sulla. He is often blamed for setting in motion the events that would lead to the downfall of the Republic, but if you read the details of his life, you can see the incredible complexity of issues with which he was dealing. All things considered, he did a decent job of attempting to resolve the tension between the optimates and populares. His early retirement from public life at the height of his power is a model of noble leadership.

[–]depanneur 22 points23 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

His "job" of resolving tensions between the optimates and populares involved wiping most of the populares out with death squads.

[–]webalbatross 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sulla was an interesting figure, in that he genuinely believed in the ancient Roman values and lived up to them, but he was also contradictory in that he completely stepped over the entire Roman system in order to uphold it. I don't hold him in the same light as you do because he was short-sighted enough not to see that once he stepped over the boundaries, the rest of the Romans had no reason not to do it themselves, and with much less noble intentions as he.

[–]Toms_R 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Lucio Urtubia

[–]nerga[S] 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I did not know who lucio urtubia was. But it also showed me my giant lack of knowledge in the Spanish rebel movement against Franco. Thank you for peaking my interest.

[–]TierceI 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Saladin comes to mind, although contemporary/revisionist history treats him pretty well. Ghengis Khan? Kate Beaton said it best, I think: http://www.harkavagrant.com/history/Genghisfinal.png

[–]avillepunk 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Percy Shelley, the husband of Mary Shelley, even though he is more ignored than seen in a negative light. His anarchist poetry influenced the likes of Henry David Thoreau, and his ideas on nonviolence were a major influence on both Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. Check him out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Bysshe_Shelley#Idealism

[–]PenguinLobotomy 71 points72 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Vlad Tepes, aka Vlad the Impaler, aka the historical basis for Dracula. To the Romanians, the man was a hero.

[–]DrJulianBashirST:DS9 - Mirror Universe 39 points40 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I was once in Romania, and I saw a wall stencil that had a picture of him with the slogan "Vlad Tepes for president."

[–]nerga[S] 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That is so great.

[–]seeker135 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I went to high school with one of his direct descendants. The last name is different, though. But the father wrote a book about his famous ancestor.

[–]KarmaKaiser 27 points28 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That history has got to help with the ladies. Being able to say you are a descendant of fucking Dracula? No way that doesn't work.

[–]DonkeyDongCountry 68 points69 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"Wanna see why they call me The Impaler?" EDIT: You should all be ashamed for upvoting this

[–]KarmaKaiser 38 points39 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Impaler?

I hardly know her!

RESPONSE EDIT: The shame only makes it more sexy.

[–]MoaningMyrtle 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't know, these days you have to be a sparkly vampire to get any tang.

[–]BeardedBagels 24 points25 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm Romanian. He isn't considered a hero, he's literally referred to as the devil.

"Du-te la dracu" means go to hell or go to the devil.

If anything, he's considered a legend, or folk "part" hero because he did fight off invading Ottoman hordes, but also took great pleasure in torturing and killing his own people. It was definitely not a great time.

[–]fatcobra7 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm Romanian and I read a historical biography about him when I was younger. Despite his undeniably ruthless ways, (actually because of them) he was respected for bringing security and integrity to the country. He was known to even impale merchants for lying about the value of their goods when reporting them stolen.

I remember reading a tale that while he was ruler, he had a jeweled, golden chalice placed at a resting area by a stream in the wilderness, near a fairly often travelled path. The chalice never went missing in all the years he was ruler, that is how much he was feared.

It was undeniable that he was vicious to the extreme and probably wicked by most standards, but he is respected for the results he accomplished. Also, take into consideration that memories of him have likely only grown fonder in people minds after living through so many years of corrupt rulers and politicians.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Fear is not a valid way to rule.

[–]fatcobra7 5 points6 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You mean it's not a nice way to rule? It obviously can be valid. I don't know what you're trying to say other than "What he did wasn't nice"

Edit: Actually I think it's fair to say that using fear is universal among all governing bodies and has been throughout all of history. There may be some rare exceptions, but the use of fear is probably the most common fashion by which power structures are maintained. And I'm talking about everywhere from North Korea to Norway.

[–]Kardlonoc 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Oh yeah Bathory gets a bad rap. I mean girls just want to have fun!

[–]reodd 67 points68 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Benedict Arnold.

Everyone forgets that he was a hero before he switched sides.

[–]Rochallor 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not just a "hero" in the regular sense, but in the "if it wasn't for him we'd all be calling french fries 'chips'" sense.

[–]kasutori_Jack 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Also West Point was never taken by the British -- Arnold was a net positive during his service.

And the dude fought duels and won them.

Arnold's only real crime was having a very sensitive ego.

[–]HoWheelsWork 15 points16 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He's not known to many in the West, but 曹操 (Cao Cao) is one of the most famous figures in Chinese history, and has almost always depicted as a villain in popular culture, including the recent theatrical release of Red Cliff, but probably most influentially through his portrayal in Chinese Operas, as well as the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. He was a ruthless warrior, but also a brilliant strategist and talented in the arts. While he failed to unite all of China, he did unite the North. He also brought agriculture and land reclamation to his regions, greatly improving the living conditions for people, who had fallen into such destitution that they had resorted to cannibalism.

[–]wetkarma 82 points83 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Malcolm X.

[–]crazybones 58 points59 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I much preferred his grandfather, Malcolm VIII

[–]GPechorin 61 points62 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I wasn't too fond of his great, great, great grandfather, Malcolm V, better know as Malcolm in the Middle.

[–]fisting_for_freedom 27 points28 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I just finished reading his autobiography and it is astounding how wrong so many people are about him.

[–]Scriblerus 148 points149 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Marx

[–]depanneur 62 points63 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't understand the hate so many people have for Marx; besides writing his political and economic works, he really didn't do anything offensive or morally wrong during his lifetime.

[–]EarnestMalware 80 points81 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

For some reason people act like Lenin didn't rework Marxism. Most of the people who hate Marx just hate Lenin.

[–]larsga 45 points46 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Lenin didn't have much choice. There's nothing in Marx that tells you how to run a complete society. So Lenin & co made it up as they went along.

[–]Thrillho- 11 points12 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Lenin (and Trotsky) also had to deal with the fact that they were trying to precipitate a communist revolution in Russia, when Marx argued that they would first occur in advanced industrial societies like Britain, Germany, and the US. This is a major problem when you're trying to foment a revolution based on Marxist theory, and so they came up with the idea that it was possible to skip the intermediate stages of economic development, allowing Russia to go from what was in many ways a pre-industrial, feudal society to an industrialized, socialist society without discrediting Marx.

[–]roodammy44 27 points28 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Some of Lenin's last words, apparently, were of him telling Trotsky not to let Stalin get control of the party.

If he weren't on display for such a long time, I would have said that he was spinning in his grave at how things turned out.

[–]almodozo 46 points47 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes, but did he oppose Stalin for his ruthless inclination to state terror, or just for his plotting, scheming and paranoia, and his preference for bureaucratic power over grand ideas?

I mean, those latter ones would have all already been perfectly good reasons to be wary of Stalin, obviously. ;-) But sometimes people make too much of how communism was only "perverted" under Stalin. It was Lenin who had the freely elected parliament surrounded and many newly elected MPs arrested; it was under Lenin that the first massive prisoner camps in the icy north were built; it was Lenin who oversaw the persecution of all rival socialist movements; it was Lenin who helped formulate concepts such as the dictatorship of the proletariat and an elite party as the avant-garde of the people, which were used, in his time already, as rationales for ruthlessly clamping down on any protest and dissent and claiming the right to govern, by force, even in absence of majority popular support.

I mean, don't get me wrong: Stalin really was much worse still. Just saying that it's not like Lenin was the good guy who would have prevented all the terror if he could have. You only need to read some of the letters and orders he wrote in his first few years in power - yes, it was a civil war, but even so he seemed to push his underlings, if anything, to only greater brutality.

As an 18-year old socialist, I started my MA in Russia and Eastern Europe Studies partly because I wanted to know when it all went wrong with the Soviet Union. Admittedly that's a couple of decades ago, but the more that I read about the October "Revolution" and the years after, the more I felt that the answer was that it had simply been wrong from the start. Beginning with the revolution itself (the October one, not the February one), which had really been more of a coup d'etat.

I'm still a socialist, for lack of better definitions, but I've come to see Soviet communism as itself a perversion of socialist ideas, right from the start, beginning with Lenin and Trotsky -- a malign outgrowth of the ideology really, which over the 20th century ended up doing a grievous amount of harm to the name and prospects of socialism worldwide. And still new 18-year olds, just like I was, realizing the brutalities of capitalism, look to Lenin or Trotsky or at least Che Guevara for answers, instead of to non-totalitarian socialists; the harm continues.

/soapbox /rant

[–]PossiblyRight[!] 38 points39 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't understand the hate so many people have for Marx

Successful cold-war propaganda that lasts. Outside the US (and maybe the UK) hate for Marx is pretty rare.

[–]bit2reddit 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In India state of West Bengal had a 34 years democratic rule of Communist Party of India (Marxist).They must be popular to do that..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_India_(Marxist)#State_Assembly_Elections

[–]Seefor 18 points19 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think the problem most people have with Marx is of a more indirect nature, mainly that his writings inspired dictatorial regimes which resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people.

[–][deleted] 81 points82 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

that is like hating on Athenian democracy because the Congo calls itself a democratic republic

[–]Seefor 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Certainly. But considering the vast use of Marx imagery in said dictatorships I don't think it's a surprise that many people make this connection.

[–]mmaluff 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Fascists use Roman imagery extensively during their regime. I don't see anybody hating on the Romans.

[–]Seefor 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The disconnect is fairly larger between Roman imagery and the Fascists. In Marx' case only a few decades seperated him and the first Communist dictatorships, while several millennia seperated the Romans and the Fascists. Furthermore, Marx had written some quite specific analysises of economic and political conditions which the Communist dictatorships all aspired or claimed to follow. No such Roman text existed which the Fascists could use (How useful would an analysis of Roman society be to a 20th century society anyhow?).

So your analogy doesn't really make sense.

[–]mmaluff 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Exactly, I agree. The point I was trying to make is that the use of imagery is not enough for the association, the other factors you mentioned are necessary. In addition, nobody tried to do any kind of smear campaign against the Romans when the fascists ruled.

[–]bitt3n 119 points120 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

seriously, Harpo never gets the respect he deserves.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Came here to say that. It doesn't get much funnier than A Night at the Opera.

[–]almodozo 13 points14 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

William Jennings Bryan. He had some wacky ideas, but the survival of more of his brand of impassioned populism would have benefited the Democrats a lot through the party's socio-economically pallid years up until FDR, not to mention recent decades. More respect for his populist championing of the little man would also have benefited the now overly pro-business American political culture, and might have helped avoid the American, rural and working class heartland from swinging to the GOP as hard as it did.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think that the Scopes Trial showed just how progressive he really was.

[–]furlongxfortnight 39 points40 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Hannibal. One of the greatest generals of all time

[–]apatton19 20 points21 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Is he generally shown in a negative light?

[–]xerexerex 25 points26 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You mean the guy that is frequently referred to as one of the greatest military mind in history?

Really the only bad thing you hear about him is that one big failure.

[–]allywilson 12 points13 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Elephants. Alps. Determination. Legend.

[–]rjm-11 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Maximilien Robespierre. This guy gets too much blame for the reign of terror. He began his career as a Paris-based lawyer committed to championing the rights of the common man in the face of the aristocracy. He was even none by admirers as "The incorruptible" for his firm stance. I feel like he genuinely wanted to see positive democratic change in France, but the pace of political changes during France, and the relatively unique position he was thrust into got the better of him.

[–]Rimuu 36 points37 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ho Chi Minh anyday

[–]Sir_Meowsalot 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ho Chi Minh was the freakin' bomb.

[–]n0whereman 67 points68 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Nikola Tesla. Without him it would have been a much longer road to the computer age. AC current alone transformed the whole electricity landscape and it was suddenly far more efficient to wire homes across the nation. Unfortunately, in his later years he claimed to have been in contact with aliens and was strongly in favor of eugenics, which pretty much cost him his whole reputation. Notwithstanding, he was still a far greater credit to the human race than Edison.

[–]Ozlin 18 points19 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't disagree that Tesla was once demonized but is he still regarded in a negative light now? Most depictions of him modernly that I have seen are as a bit of a crazy eccentric guy but hardly "negative." I don't mean to really argue but I'm asking out of curiosity if there are still such negative portrayals of him.

[–]misterdenton 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't think it's that he's portrayed in a negative light, but that he's forgotten.

[–]rospaya 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Was Tesla ever shown in a negative light?

[–]michaelfarker 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes, very negative. He was the victim of widespread slander paid for by Westinghouse & Edison. His ideas won in the end, but he died with nothing but debt to his name and has since been largely forgotten. Today I have usually seen him represented as the prototypical mad scientist (complete with Tesla coils).

Who invented electricity? If you are talking about the stuff coming out of the plug in my wall it was Tesla, not Edison. Edison fought hard and fought dirty to get it to be DC (in which he was heavily invested) instead of AC (which proved to be safer and MUCH more affordable for customers).

[–]gamblekat 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Tesla was a brilliant scientist, but one of the worst businessmen in history. He would have been one of the richest men of his age, if he hadn't given away his three-phase AC patent royalties to Westinghouse. Instead he lost everything in a fire that destroyed his NYC lab and wasted the rest of his life trying to scrape together funding instead of realizing his scientific potential.

[–]GreatWhiteFork 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I can never again think of Tesla without picturing David Bowie. Two awesome-possum men...

[–]ramekinsforever 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

John Quincy Adams

[–]doomsday_windbag 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

General William Tecumseh Sherman. He was a brilliant military strategist and deeply principled man who had no illusions that war was glorious or heroic, merely a tool for bringing about peace. His total war policy made him a villain in the south and like most other American military generals had a terrible record with Native Americans, but he is a complex and fascinating human being.

"I confess, without shame, I am sick and tired of fighting—its glory is all moonshine; even success the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families, appealing to me for sons, husbands and fathers ... tis only those who have never heard a shot, never heard the shriek and groans of the wounded and lacerated ... that cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation."

[–]The_Turk2 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No competition for me; my person would have to be the under appreciated Byzantine General Belisarius. He is largely forgotten even though he was the sole person who restored much of the Western Roman Empire (Mediterranean) to the Byzantines under Justinian. But Justinian's bitch wife, Theodora, had him outcasted, because she thought he would try to seize power, when all he ever did was try to serve Emperor Justinian loyally. At the end of his life he was drowned out by historians, until fairly modern times.

[–]PerkisizingCupcakes 40 points41 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Wow not a lady mentioned yet. I'll say one then, Anne Boleyn. She got a whole country to switch their religion just so she could get a guy divorced. And she genuinely believed in that religious switch as well.

[–]littlegray 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I was just ticking down the comments waiting for a lady. I was thinking Anne Boleyn too! Or Marie Antoinette.

[–]ezrawork 35 points36 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Machiavelli. The Prince is an excellent book.

[–]seeker135 22 points23 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Jezebel. Got a bad rap. When you consider that the storytellers, and the scribes were all men, it is inevitable that the female becomes tarnished.

[–]arbuthnot-lane 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Isac Asimov always had a soft spot for Jezebel. He portrays her in a very positive light in both his Guide to the Bible and Caves of Steel.

[–]ephemerat 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

She should get an inclusion just for the fact that she was murdered by defenestration: Always nice to get a genuine excuse to use that word.

[–]JimSFV 15 points16 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Giles Corey. Found to be a witch in the Salem Witch Trials. He refused to enter a plea, and was not burned, but "pressed" for a plea. This means they placed a board upon him, and began stacking rocks atop the board. The pressing lasted for TWO DAYS. His response to the sherriff every time he spoke was "More weight." Then he died.

A stud of the highest magnitude.

[–]TheVoiceofTheDevil 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Nobody dislikes Giles Corey.

[–]OortCloud 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Tiberius Ceaser. Augustus founded the Princeps and the succession but Tiberius turned it the Roman state into a self sustaining machine.

[–]SA1230 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Empress Wu

[–]CaelusBru 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Julian the Apostate. A Late Roman Emperor who was considered an enemy to Christianity, but really wanted there to be a coexistence of all religions. He thought that if you ban a religious practice, you are essentially destroying a civilization from history.

[–]ThatFuckingGuy 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm impressed nobody mentioned Josip Broz Tito yet.

He was a WWII hero, he resisted Stalin's policies and challenged Soviet hegemony over Eastern Europe, and kept together a multinational country for 27 years.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Cicero seemed to be an enlightened statesman and all-around brilliant man, but HBO's Rome made the guy out to be a scheming coward.

[–]falconear 15 points16 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

From the reading I've done, Cicero was a genius speechwriter, legal expert and orator. The problem is he wasn't a warrior, and in Roman politics you had to have both.

[–]thephotoman 16 points17 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Read his speeches.

He was a scheming coward. He was just really good at it.

[–]nerga[S] 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

HBO's Rome turned everyone into a scheming coward, with the exeption of Polo

[–]ReynardMuldrake 21 points22 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Albert Speer bravely stood up to Hitler and tried to stop senseless death and destruction late in WWII. He was greatly remorseful at Nuremburg despite the fact that he never believed in Nazi politics. He betrayed his country to help the Americans bring an early end to the war. He was also a gifted architectural mind who designed many influential structures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Speer

EDIT: He was also one of the Nazi conspirators that tried to assassinate Hitler.

[–]GroundhogExpert 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Marcus Aurelius

[–]KilgoreTrout42 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

lbj, guess he never is shown as badly as some of these other folks mentioned, but catches a lot of slack for his role in Vietnam. I just really respect a guy who has the moral integrity to change an opinion in light of evidence (civil rights issues), and has the skills to make change he seemed to really believe in from within the system. If you look at the massive amount of social legislation he was able to pass through both as Senator and as President, it's really quite impressive.

[–]llordlloyd 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes, agree. When you consider the delusion the entire US admin worked under: that Ho Chi Minh was a puppet of Moscow, it is little wonder that LBJ could not control the war. You only have to look at how much he aged between 66 and 68.

[–]phfowol 13 points14 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Friedrich Nietzsche - Great thinker - Portrayed horribly. It's a shame that his disgust for many parts of humanity happened to overlap with some of Hitler's specific hatreds. And then the whole sister-love rumor/debate...

[–]gehringer 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That, and letting his pro-Nazi sister get control of his stuff after he died meant a lot of his later papers were...edited before they were released to make them fit better with Nazi ideology.

[–][deleted] 32 points33 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Herbert Hoover.

He was a self-made millionaire who rose from deep poverty and a remarkable humanitarian. As president he tried to deal with the great depression in the same way FDR did, spending Federal money on infrastructure programs (though not as much as the new deal.) I really believe the New Deal did not end the depression as is widely believed, but instead it was the massive wartime spending that revitalized the economy.

I believe Hoover's image as a do-nothing president that could not handle the depression came from his own comments during the crisis in which he sought to reassure people and the markets by saying things like "prosperity is just around the corner." Perhaps such comments were a bit hamfisted but the president must try to reassure the nation in such cases. In any way those comments don't reflect his actual response to the crisis which shows him being very diligent and meeting with a great number of prominent economists to find a solution

[–]Nunamaker 36 points37 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He, and his wife, could also speak Mandarin and would use it to speak in confidence in the White House. Rad.

[–]LordBufo 12 points13 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Don't forget that he saved the civilians of Belgium from starvation after WW1 and that Calvin Coolidge and Warren Harding made most of the policies he was blamed for. I always feel bad for the guy.

I really believe the New Deal did not end the depression as is widely believed, but instead it was the massive wartime spending that revitalized the economy.

This is irrelevant to Hoover :P

[–]l-bow-deep 18 points19 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I totally agree but just a gentle reminder to conservatives: WWII spending is still government spending.

[–]Magnus_Thundercock 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I would say most conservatives are okay with that since the federal government explicitly has the power to raise armies and declare war.

If I misunderstood what you were attempting to say with your comment, please feel free to expand on it.

[–]creiss74 13 points14 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

His point is that government spending can turn an economy around. Conservatives like to say gov spending can only hinder economic recovery. They then discredit The New Deal by saying WWII was what got us out of the Great Depression.

But WWII was just a huge government spending initiative. Therefore government spending can create jobs / kickstart an economy.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes, it was the largest spending in our history and made the US into the world's foremost power.

I honestly believe the depression was too complex for a limited government and presidency under Hoover. FDR pretty much reinvented and made the far-reaching modern presidency.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

|Yes, it was the largest spending in our history and made the US into the world's foremost power.|

And the whole Europe being in shambles thing.

[–]Dichotomouse 16 points17 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In 1932 17,000 WWI veterans and their families camped out in front of the white house, asking for the payment promised to them by the federal government (they wanted it early because of the depression). Hoover ordered the US army to remove these veterans.

He ordered an attack on a peaceful demonstration of veterans who fought for the country, their wives, and their children. A 12 week old infant died from tear gas used.

Fuck Hoover.

EDIT: For comparison, the same protest happened during FDR's term. FDR responded by providing an area for the protesters to gather, providing food for them, and Eleanor Roosevelt met with them extensively about their concerns.

There is much more than being president than your policies. Hoover failed to be a real leader when the country needed one the most.

[–]stefanjbecket 25 points26 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Robert E. Lee. Fighting on behalf of a terrible, brutal cause, but a brilliant general nonetheless.

[–]bobosaurs 17 points18 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah, very upstanding when he sent home free blacks to slavery during his two invasions of the North. Don't get me wrong, great guy, but the circlejerk surrounding him (I go to a Southern School) is frankly disgusting. FYI, He wasn't all that great of a general, its just his opposition was awful.

[–]Clockwork_Prophecy 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

its just his opposition was awful.

All the good northern generals were in the western theater, so they didn't meet Lee very often.

[–]p0wderedtoastman 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I want to debate you on this, but I believe it will turn into a chicken/egg debate. Was it Lee who was the better tactician who knew his opponents well because he went to West Point with almost all of them? Or were they just poor leaders?

I want to debate you, but I think it will be futile.

[–]bobosaurs 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm good with the agree to disagree stance.

[–]bradshawz 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thank you. I went to school in VA and we had to write papers about how awesome Lee and Jackson were. I asked a black friend what their perspective on this was. He said it was offensive but he was in some regard disassociated from it all. He just wrote the paper whilst ignoring the glaring bigotry that surrounded it all.

[–]werewolfpgh 21 points22 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Lee fought in support of Virginia not slavery. His loyalties lied with his state not country.

[–]mistrowl 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I dunno, you'd probably be hard-pressed to find any educated American, north or south, who doesn't respect Robert E. Lee.

[–]Clockwork_Prophecy 12 points13 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Respecting Robert E. Lee is the middle step in understanding the civil war. Not respecting him is both the first level of understanding and the last.

[–]Clockwork_Prophecy 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Robert E. Lee's sterling reputation is based on fiction that even he refused to dignify in his lifetime. He might have been a decent tactician, but he was an awful general, mostly as a result of his milquetoast inability to discipline his officers—who frequently arrested one another and ignored Lee's orders to fulfill personal vendettas against each other.

[–]goishin 27 points28 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Genghis Khan. That dude had so many women that there's a good chance five percent of your, and when I say 'your' I mean you, the reader, five percent of your genes come from him.

Yeah, he was brutal. He was a beast. He also conquered most of the known planet. You gotta give him props.

Also, when giving a speech about him in school, you get to start out the speech with a hearty "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!!!!"

Edit: So the 5% thing seems to be very controversial. I apologize for using it as I thought it was a good way of explaining that the dude got around if you know what I mean.

[–]l-bow-deep 30 points31 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ummm that AND he set up peaceful religious debates between Buddhists, Christians, and Muslims around the same time "civilized" folks in Europe were slaughtering Jews and Muslims.

[–]Hash47 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Western Europe even thought the Mongol's were another Christian crusade, that was until they ransacked Russia and Poland.

[–]mixmastermind 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Then they assumed he was a Jew and started slaughtering their Jewish populations. Again.

Seriously, what is Europe's problem with the Jew-killing.

[–]Hash47 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

All this whilst Genghis and his predecessors were some of the most religiously tolerant ruler's the world had seen.

[–]fquested 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

AND he codified law by having it written down, and made himself subject to laws he passed, all this despite being illiterate.

[–]thavalai 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

5% of my genes are from him? I find that hard to believe. Do you have the source for this?

I'm not even sure what "his genes" mean. I probably don't understand genetics well, but I was under the impression that with each successive generation your contribution to your descendant's genes will be halved, assuming your descendants don't have kids together. In that case, by the 10th generation (probably only about a 300 to 350-year span) I'll be one of 1024 people to have contributed to my descendant's genes.

Maybe time to ask r/askscience.

[–]LucasRiley 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The 5% means that 1 in 20 people is related to Genghis Khan. The statement was poorly worded.

[–]thavalai 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

National Geographic says 0.5% of men are descended from him.

[–]AbouBenAdhem 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It says 0.5% of men carry his Y-chromosome DNA (i.e., are his direct patrilineal descendants). The percentage of people related to him through male or female descent will be many, many times greater.

[–]OldManSimms 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Alexander Hamilton has always seemed really interesting to me. Seems like an incredibly intelligent and ambitious guy.

[–]themindofvince 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Napoleon Bonaparte; phenomenal war strategian, a reformer, and a man who implemented radical progressive change for the French.

[–]tatch 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

17 years of wars, perhaps six million Europeans dead, France bankrupt, her overseas colonies lost

Also a man who took the birth rate in France and worked out from that a "budget" of lives he could spend each year in his wars.

A genius no doubt, but one with little feeling for humanity.

[–]wonderyak 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Genghis Khan

[–]Im_Helping 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Rasputin. He wasnt all that bad really. Just was really good at manipulating rubes... then got scapegoated by the royals, and the bolsheviks, and turned into a "bogeyman"

[–]Agent00funk 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I did an independent research project on Bismarck's role in the unification of Germany....have you read his biography, if not, you should!

[–]the_shape 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ctrl+F "Hitler" 1/12 results.

faceplam

[–]almodozo 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ha! I admit that was the first thing I did too. But in fairness, of the 12 results I think there's only 1 actual mention of him as answer to the question.

[–]WolfNippleChips 27 points28 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

  • Hiter. I'm no nazi; nor would I call him awesome. I, like most people, am appaled by him, but, there is no denying that this mad man was also a genius. I'm facinated by WWII history, and all the players, but Hitler is by far my favorite to study.

  • Richard Nixon - He gets a bad rap for Watergate (getting caught doing what most politicians do anyway), but the man got us out of Vietnam, opened trade to China and began a more "reasonable" relationship with Russia. He brought about a cease-fire and negotiations between Arabs and Israelis. He set up the Council on Environmental Quality to give recognition to the problems of pollution and consumption. He ended the peace-time draft and helped to restore peace to the nation's campuses.

[–]seeker135 13 points14 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I once heard the proposition that Nixon needed to fail at the Presidency to prove his ultimate unworthyness to himself. He also initiated the monstrous "War on Drugs" (aka "the war on people of color"), and "the war on an inanimate object".

He gets no break from this typist. He tried to steal the country, and would have, if not for a few in his inner circle who weren't indictable.

[–]No_name_Johnson 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Had the Watergate scandal not occurred I feel like Nixon would be remwmbered much more favorably. He was politically ruthless, which is probably why he got so much done but also why he's so disliked. I feel/hope that in a few decades he'll be remembered morefavorably.

[–]thisisnotkevin 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

People also seem to forget that Nixon is the one who finally got the US out of Vietnam. While he escalated the bombing campaign pretty massively in Laos and Cambodia, that was a part of a militarily sound strategy to weaken the enemy enough to provide the South some respite/time to organize as the US left.

Now, we shouldn't have been in Vietnam in the first place, the South shouldn't have been recognized as an independent state because Ho Chi Minh was democratically elected, etc, etc. Either way, it was Nixon who finally pulled the US out.

[–]CorneliusJack 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He also abandoned the archaic gold standard, which was a big deal in economical advancement.

[–][deleted] 35 points36 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Fidel Castro

[–]chaosopher 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I am not anti-Fidel or pro, but I do want to say that I have some friends who boat around the Gulf of Mexico, and stayed in the poor towns of Mexico, before sailing to Cuba.

Upon their return they said that compared to Cuba, Mexico felt like the land of plenty.

[–]headed4anonymity 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think the embargo would have helped that along a lot.

[–]schickfu 42 points43 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Hells yeah. The US thought everybody in Cuba was miserable and would come to America pronto if given the chance, so they made the wet foot dry foot rule that said if you make it to land you get automatic refugee status in America. Castro filled a boat with all of Cuba's worst violent criminals and said "Go have fun in Florida!" And that's where we got Modern Miami.

[–]Kerblaaahhh 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Although he also lost a lot of skilled workers, members of the middle class, entrepreneurs, etc. who didn't want to stay under Castro's communist system during the early immigrations. The criminals and such came more in the later immigrations.

[–]meeeow 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I've been to Cuba. Is not as rosy as presented and from what I gathered the general opinion is 'the revolution was great, we needed that, but it's time to move on into a more open society and politics'.

[–]Kaliman10 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He will be remembered for his ferreous oposition to rampant capitalism and imperialist countries.

[–]celtic1888 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Amazing when you think of what Cuba has done and the odds against them not being completely obliterated over the years.

[–]smadley 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I remember being about 10 years old when my opinion of him changed (only 21 now). I had grown up typically American, thinking he was awful and Cuba was awful and all that jazz. My great-grandmother met him on her honeymoon in Italy, and she told my mom and I the story one day, of how charming and charismatic he was, and how Europeans and Cubans alike all thought he was going to be the best thing to ever happen to Cuba. As an up-and-comer, he actually toasted her and her husband, and she made it a point to stay up on the less biased information about him when she returned to the American south. Coolest story ever.

[–]Nyaos 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There are plenty of negative things Castro has done, but you have to respect his ability to keep Cuba from being one of the very few Caribbean states controlled by western corporations.

[–]conorreid 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Genghis Khan, hands down. He connected the east and the west, allowed civilized debate, extensive trade, created a huge mail service, and brought tons of Chinese technology to Europe. I feel like he's way too often viewed as simply a brutal savage.

[–]OrigamiRock 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He did have something like half the population of Iran massacred.

[–]daveox 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Doc Holliday

[–]justaverage 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm your huckleberry

[–]Conchobair 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I've never seen a negative portrayal.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You're a daisy if you do.