MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
We were at Coughton Court over the weekend, a place heavily involved in the Gunpowder Plot. The feeling that we got from the people there was that the plotters were heroic who were nearly successful, yet my view is that they were terrorists who got caught trying to kill hundreds of people.
Similarly, I watched a thing on the iPlayer about the Normans and was quite alarmed at what a nasty b’stard William The Conqueror was.
Who else has polarized history… Robin Hood? William Wallace?
Winston Churchill? It does amuse me the simplistic portrayal of him as the hero wartime leader when other aspects of his career were more than a little unsavoury.
I see tj got in before me.
It's well known that the Normans were utter bastards. Anglo-Saxon society, whilst brutal, was reasonably progressive compared to what the Normans imposed. They seemed to be of the opinion that having conquered the country William owned everything and everyone in it to do with as he pleased. This still has implications today. Fortunately, one of the Plantagenets (forget which one) decided he admired the Anglo Saxons 200 years later and rekindled the sense of Englishness and pride in the old ways, which also has implications today.
@SaxonRider to the thread please.
Who else has polarized history…
Just about everyone. There are two reasons for this:
1) One man's hero is another man's villain, for obvious reasons.
2) Most significant people are just people with flaws like anyone else, and they become important by being single-minded which clearly comes with drawbacks. Cromwell is a good example. In the 17th century replacing a monarchy with parliament in Europe was a hugely radical step and it encouraged all sorts of progressive thinkers, however he was also an utter bastard, obsessive and lost it a bit. It is possible to be a hero for some things and a villain for others - Churchill is another example as mentioned.
Just to be clear - thats not to denigrate Churchills very real leadership during the war.
Martin McGuinness? Obviously complicit in the killings of british soldiers and others but without his ability to grasp the chance of peace there would still be a civil war in NI. Same with Paisley
People are complex and historical events is brutal. No one person or nation is squeaky clean. Some people love to demonise the British Empire, but spending lots of time in India talking to Indian people, and similarly in the 'ex-colonies' in the Far East and though they recognise there were atrocities that occurred, things were not exactly harmonious before we rocked up and we did leave a legacy for which they are very thankful of and on balance hold the UK in high regard.
Its modern times innit? trying to distil complex issues and people into one soundbite - it's the same with Brexit and the climate debate. Cambridge university is going through it with slavery.
Also taking today's morals and ethics, which have moved on and developed over time, and applying them to historical events means historical events are never going to come out well. Winston Churchill was a flawed character and some people Mother Teresa was one of the most evil people to have walked the earth. Depends which point of view you're coming from.
Most significant people are just people with flaws like anyone else, and they become important by being single-minded which clearly comes with drawbacks.
This. Except that I would say it is still possible to identify those whose actions were negative enough to warrant vilification. Cromwell is one such. He and his followers really were the Taliban of the time. Whereas Charles I and his archbishop (William Laud) were flawed, they were nothing like the religious totalitarians that the Puritans were.
Stalin is another such figure. He is looked upon with sympathy in limited quarters because, frankly, the Bolsheviks and their successors get off lightly. As representatives of the 'left wing', and because their programme was not racially-based (except when it came to Ukrainians), and finally, because they eventually contributed to the defeat of the Third Reich, they are not seen in the same league with the Nazis. If one looks at his pre-1939 record for total numbers of deaths, however, Stalin makes Hitler look like a pussy cat.
As for the Normans, they were not unlike the Romans of the 11th century. Brutal? Yes. Incredibly efficient in military and administrative terms? Unsurpassed.
Oliver Cromwell. It's very easy for modern Britons to laud him as a parliamentarian and a reformer, but he was a nasty, nasty bastard who massacred Irish civilians during the Irish Campaign of 1649-50.
Even three hundred and fifty odd years later, Cromwell is a controversial subject for Anglo-Irish relations (source - Wikipedia) In 1965 the Irish minister for lands stated that his policies were necessary to "undo the work of Cromwell"; circa 1997, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern demanded that a portrait of Cromwell be removed from a room in the Foreign Office before he began a meeting with Robin Cook
History is written by the victors.
Thatcher - She was very supportive of the need to address climate change.
Richard the Lionheart. Portrayed as that great English king when he seems to have hated the place and only wanted it as a bank account.
Incredibly efficient in military and administrative terms? Unsurpassed.
Bit of a myth this. Good on the fighting side but a major part of why England was such a good target was administratively it was fairly advanced which was reflected in the wealth.
Cromwell is always a fascinating subject.
The comparison to Taliban is frankly nuts. Under his government there was actually more religious freedom than before and many years after. So long as the faith didnt put the country at risk then he was more tolerant than, say, Charles by a long, long way.
Overall his rule is far more complex than often portrayed. For exampel the multiple attempts to try and set up anything other than a dicatorship and his attempts to save Charles from his own religious stupidity/ego.
Luke Skywalker.
Killed hundreds of thousands of civilian workers on the Death Star, including Mr Stevens, Head of Catering.
Even got a medal for it, the heartless bastard.
Thatcher – She was very supportive of the need to address climate change.
Mostly by stopping the emissions from heavy industry. ☹️
So that's the reason Thatcher closed all those coal mines. I did wonder.
D G Rossetti, couldn't paint and behaved like a complete King Canute
History is what one age finds worthy of note in another. Each age writes it own history.
He and his followers really were the Taliban of the time. Whereas Charles I and his archbishop (William Laud) were flawed, they were nothing like the religious totalitarians that the Puritans were.
This interesting example of over-simplification.
It's trying to explain the past in terms of the present (totalitarian, Taliban), which never works well. Its also trying to impose a simple logical framework on a chaotic situations. (There were never just two sides in the Civil Wars). And if you reversed it, it could be equally true.
Cromwell in Ireland is another interesting one. His reputation is based on one siege where he over stepped the bounds of 17th century warfare. He WAS a bastard to the Irish in the 1650s but possibly no more so than the Earl of Strafford in the 1630s. So why is he remembered as the evil one, not the Earl of Strafford?
But that's enough about 17th century religious wars.
Eggwina Currie
Margaret Thatcher v 1.0 'school milk-robber'
Margaret Thatcher v 1.1 'stealth vegan activist'
It’s trying to explain the past in terms of the present (totalitarian, Taliban), which never works well. Its also trying to impose a simple logical framework on a chaotic situations. (There were never just two sides in the Civil Wars). And if you reversed it, it could be equally true.
Except that the overwhelming character of the conflict between Puritans under Cromwell and Royalists was religious-theological, and from a theological perspective Puritanism was fundamentally and inherently intolerant.
Behold one of the finest libraries of medieval Britain, post-Cromwell:
/mischievous mode
Thatcher is a good example. Although I'm staunchly anti-Thatcherite and I fundamentally disagree with her policies, her strategic vision for her party and her controversial personal relationships with genocidal dictators, apartheid apologists and some of the very worst people in modern history, there were some policies that in retrospect were better than others.
Everything is nuanced. Who knew?
It’s well known that the Normans were utter bastards.
Everybody was a bastard back in the day.
re. Thatcher there was one of those women of color on the radio the other day saying that in her part of Africa women were considered pretty much good for nothing until Thatcher hit the news internationally. Suddenly there was a woman that tyrants at all levels could respect, which opened the doors to women generally.
and from a theological perspective Puritanism was fundamentally and inherently intolerant.
Apart from the minor detail that Cromwell clearly wasnt intolerant.If your faith didnt interfere with others then you were generally okay. Not up to modern standards but way beyond what was the norm then.
So that’s the reason Thatcher closed all those coal mines. I did wonder.
No. She closed them for many reasons but no for the environment.
She closed them for many reasons
Mostly a hatred of the poor.
Mostly a hatred of the poor.
Well she was a Tory that's second nature for them.
The butcher Cumberland. Seen differently by different sections of Scots society at the time of his genocides.
The butcher Cumberland. Seen differently by different sections of Scots society at the time of his genocides.
Big fan of his sausages.
Folklore paints Dick Turin as a hero
On Hounslow Heath as I rode o'er
I spied a lawyer riding before
Kind Sir you afraid of Turpin
That mischievous blade?
Oh rare Turpin hero
Oh rare Turpin oh
Said Turpin he'd never find me here
I hid my money in my boot
The lawyer says no one can find
I hid my gold in my cape behind
Oh rare Turpin hero
Oh rare Turpin oh
As they were riding past the mill
Turpin commands him to stand still
He says your cloak I must cut off
My mare she needs a saddle cloth
Oh rare Turpin hero
Oh rare Turpin oh
As turpin rode in search of prey
He spied a man on taxiway
And boldly then bid him stand
Your gold he said I do demand
Oh rare Turpin hero
Oh rare Turpin oh
And Turpin even without remorse
Soon knocked him quite from off his horse
And left him on the ground to spall
While he rode off with his gold and all
Oh rare Turpin hero
Oh rare Turpin oh
Now Turpin is condemned to die
To hang upon the gallows high
His legacy is a strong rope
For the shooting of a dung-hill cock
Oh rare Turpin hero
Oh rare Turpin oh
Oh rare Turpin hero
Oh rare Turpin oh
Oh rare Turpin hero
Oh rare Turpin oh
When he was a murderous thief.
Folklore paints Dick Turin as a hero
Shrouded in mystery?
Oooh!
The Krays - They looked after their own they were kind hearted the East End was much safer.
No they murders, brutal thugs and known to rape.
Henry 8th was a mass murderer of not just wives. As above you’d be pushed to find many Irishmen called Oliver.
As above you’d be pushed to find many Irishmen called Oliver.
I had to explain to my kids last night why it was unlikely that the new royal baby would be named Oliver.
My lad is an Oliver. Told him that he is unlikely to marry a Princess.
Can even be recent modern times also.
At the start of my career, I was employed by a boss - then 31 - who was energetic, funny, evangelical sand very talented. He employed me with no experience on the basis he see the good in me, related to the job. I worked hard, did well and was often promoted as one of the companies great successes. I looked up to him a lot.
Unfortunately I believed the hype, and it took about 18-20 years for me to calm down and realise I'm a pretty ill informed and uneducated working class man of average ability in most things. I became a parody of "a bit of an arse" IMHO, something I've only recently "fixed". I have the ability to absorb, follow rules and work hard as my only traits.
Anyway, last year I joined a re-union thread on Facebook for my old/original place of work. I found it egotistical, distasteful, old fashioned and littered with an expectation and interest only of the past, not of the current. Clearly I'd moved on, and I exited the group very quickly after I released how much of an arse my former mentor and advocate now was. Such a shame - he was a technological evangelist for what is now a global business which he's no longer part of. I'm glad to leave him and my former colleague behind.
On balance, Mao did more good than harm.
Mandela.
Portrayed as a hero and probably with justification, but not beyond blowing up infrastructure and if i recall one documentary properly was open to full on terrorist warfare if it had proven necessary.
Others saw him as too quick to compromise, and to negotiate with the oppressors.
Possibly indicates he got the balance right if both sides feared him for different reasons, but it's certainly not a black and white issue.
To me, a terrorist is only a terrorist if he/she chooses violence when peaceful, democratic means of change are available.
Mandela did not have that choice. Ergo, he was no terrorist.
but it’s certainly not a black and white issue.
The Krays - to mix similes, my father lit up like a christmas tree and laughed like a drain when one of their henchmen he knew in the docks got shot by a cuckolded husband. They were psychopathic scum.
neil the wheel
terrorist.
Should probably be another thread about dirty words that people like to throw at one another, while quite often missing the exactly same actions their "side" engage in.
It's all a bit more complex than goodies and baddies, imo.
Anyhow, I think ultimately, people read the bits of history that help them identify with their own particular world view, they'll place more positivity on the bits that confirm their view points, and will deride the other bits that play against it.
Which is only natural tbh, I think very few look at history in an unbiased manner, and certainly struggle to look at it from viewpoints that are different or alien to their own perspective.
Martin McGuinness?
I reckon history won't look kindly on Paddy McGuinness either, tbh.
On balance, Mao did more good than harm.
How about Stalin?
neil the wheel
Subscriber
To me, a terrorist is only a terrorist if he/she chooses violence when peaceful, democratic means of change are available.
I think you're still a terrorist. It's just, we oversimplify what that really means.
Richard Nixon will improve as the years go on. Trump's can only improve, but won't.
Kryton57
Subscriber
Can even be recent modern times also.At the start of my career....
I can relate, my first 'proper' job became the first of a few within in the same large organisation lasting about 10 years. I was heavily invested into the ethos of the place, it was THE best of it's kind in the world, we WERE the most special people in the industry, and whatever way they did things, was the only correct way to do things.
It took 2 years to believe that, in fact, I was more than a bit spoiled and arrogant, which made it hard to adjust to working somewhere else, and I did have to do a lot of 'non core' work, whether I wanted to or not.
It took about 5 years to believe that the company that spat me out as soon as it was beneficial for them to do so (admittedly on very generous terms) actually wasn't the best of it's kind, despite the rest of the world and country especially knowing in very, very certain terms it was run my arrogant pricks for the benefit of other arrogant pricks and usually at odds with the public. In fact it would usually fail the golden rule of "don't be a dick" in everything it did, unless what it did, was for the benefit of good PR.
Even now, more than 10 years after I left, I find myself saying "yeah, but when I was in XXX we did this" like it's some kind of one size fits all trump card, I'm sure my workmates are proper fed up of hearing about tales of old when I was special.
Like Kryton I've met a few former colleagues over the years, the ones still there haven't changed, they're nice enough people, but you can see self-interest and for want of a better term, greed runs through them like like 'Blackpool' through rock. The ones who have left are different people all together, doesn't matter how their professional lives have changed, it's changed their persona.
Surely the poster boys for revisionism has to be explorers?
We revere people like Columbus and Cook today, but a lot of our glorious empire builders were rapey murderous bastards with a side order of turning indigenous peoples into raging alcoholics (a problem which still persists to this day I believe).
You could also add the philosophers of the Enlightenment such as Immanuel Kant, David Hume and Charles Darwin. They're known for their advancement of Western "civilisation" but it has come at a huge cost to non white ethnicities as everyone else is branded stupid, thieving...
A lot of their theories are wrong however, but most people still believe it has some truth as perpetuating lies is beneficial to the ruling class (white males)
Immanuel Kant
Very rarely stable.
Lovely little thinker
The Mongols ... Only the Mongols see the Mongols as heroes.
Recently I was reading the rise of the Mongols and the end of the Mongol empire, had it not for the death of Kublai Khan (5th Khan and Grandson of Genghis Khan) and internal power struggle they would have conquered the world. Well at least up to France I guess as crossing the English channel might be a bit slow.
In the Mongol history they practically won all battles and wars and at one point there were already near Italy (Roman empire in their last leg) having conquered the Baltic region, East Europe Hungary, Poland and Bulgaria. Non of the European knights etc were able to hold back the Mongols. They even defeated the Egyptian and most of the Middle east empire but they did not conquered Egypt but moved on to the Wester Europe.
The Mongols used the same strategy most of the time to win battles but for whatever reasons nobody managed to break their war strategy. I know they are good at riding horses and arrows ...
Anyway, they killed the most people in history ...
Cougar
Subscriber
We revere people like Columbus and Cook today, but a lot of our glorious empire builders were rapey murderous bastards with a side order of turning indigenous peoples into raging alcoholics (a problem which still persists to this day I believe).
I think we're already well past revering them tbh.
I have a pet theory that the one thing that's mostly stopped the UK from developing fascist demagogues was first the exploration/colonisation of the world, and later the empire- anyone that was inclined to go that way could go and do it in, well, Rhodesia just feraxample.
had it not for the death of Kublai Khan
On the upside, he did erect a pleasure dome in Xanadu.
one thing that’s mostly stopped the UK from developing fascist demagogues
And yet, here we are in brexit-land anyway so that was a bit of a waste of time.
Owain Glyndwr.
A heroic freedom fighter to many in Wales. Or a petulant looser who started a rebellion for his own ends, costing thousands of lives, totally ruining Anglo Welsh relationships and ushering in years of punative anti Welsh laws.
On the upside, he did erect a pleasure dome in Xanadu.
😃 Yes, indeed they did erect a pleasure dome in Xanadu. The location I think is in the modern day Peking and I bet they were having a swell of good times there.
How on earth can their enemies not managed to break their horseback arrow shooting strategy I don't know. One thing that the Mongols were good at was their "sucker punch" strategy and nobody saw them coming ... 😑
I need to do more research into their horseback strategy ... 🤔
The Romans would be a sitting duck for the Mongols in those days. Funny thing is that they never invaded India apart from few pockets in the North where the Iranian King retreated.
I need to do more research into their horseback strategy … 🤔
A quick google suggests that the mongols were decent enough against the bickering eastern/central europeans and their light armour, but soon as they stopped bickering amoung themselves, learned fortification and particularly how to buy in heavy armoured knights the mongols didn't really get much further.
Does seem worth some further reading tbf.
Funny thing is that they never invaded India
I'll take a stab at the Himalayas might have been an issue there! (not googled that!)
The Romans would be a sitting duck for the Mongols in those days.
Did google this, I always knew the romans split into 2, east and west empires, never knew that the eastern empire turned into the byzantines, and lasted up till about 1400ad.
Seems that's worth some more googling too! 😆
Didn't Harold Wilson's Labour government close more pits than Maggie Thatcher? Possibly a Tory urban myth.
Nothing and no one is black and white. Everything and everyone is nuanced. But people like to pick and choose their heroes and villains. And people can be both over the course of their lifetime.
Subscriber
So that’s the reason Thatcher closed all those coal mines. I did wonder.
No. She closed them for many reasons but no for the environment.
Certainly not as it meant that we started importing polish coal that was a lot more polluting
Shrouded in mystery?
Like.
Thanks Eddie.
I worried that one was flying too low. 😉
I need to do more research into their horseback strategy
Large independent commands with a minimal baggage train. So very fast moving and combined with very effective bows allowing them to just pick away at the enemy.
and particularly how to buy in heavy armoured knights the mongols didn’t really get much further.
Mongols destroyed heavy knights on several occasions. Fortifications were useful but terrain in general was also important. The further into Europe they got with heavy woodland the less effective they would be. The Mongols were mostly diverted from Europe though by infighting.
I’ll take a stab at the Himalayas might have been an issue there!
The Romans? They had plenty of other things to keep themselves amused and the Partians would have got in the way.
It's difficult to be objective about peoples motivations etc when you only use 2019 morals and ethics.
The world , in the past, was a very different place. The British Empire was a brutal regime ... but at the same time help develop the infrastrusture in many countries.
Churchill - Maybe, in view of what he was facing, and his country, the good he did ourweighs the bad. And he was a product of his time ...
Interestingly, when I was in Russia about 9 months ago, we had a talk about Stalin. Here is a guys, who reputedly killed 20 million of his own countrymen & women. He is no longer seen as a villian.
Many have held fascist /anti-semitic/ eugenic/racist views in the past ... but unfortunately they were of their time. You can criticise them now ... but you can't walk in their shoes. History is have a great value in that we should learn from it.
The problem is that we don't.
thats not to denigrate Churchills very real leadership during the wa
and the first opportunity the electorate got to give a view on that...?
elvis was a hero to many
but he never meant shit to me
We revere people like Columbus and Cook today, but a lot of our glorious empire builders were rapey murderous bastards with a side order of turning indigenous peoples into raging alcoholics (a problem which still persists to this day I believe).
I think the Americans make the explorers look like amateurs. Andrew Jackson being a good example for this thread. He was a very bad man yet is given hero status by many. But then, the whole American project has a great many skeletons in its closet, and even today relies on cultism to preserve its current shape.
Aung San Suu Kyi is a pretty good modern example.
I endured being patronised by Bono about her at Wembley, and then saw her speak when she was being celebrated as the saviour-in-waiting of Myanmar.
Now..... hmmmm
I agree that one has to judge peoples actions in the context of their place/time/culture, and nothing is ever black and white. But I also support taking down statues, removing names from buildings etc. One can rationalise why people were celebrated through statues etc contemporaneously, but also think it's ok to take the statue down (ie: stop celebrating them) today.
chewkw
The Romans would be a sitting duck for the Mongols in those days.
I'm not so sure about that. The Romans were quick learners and if they couldn't adopt their tactics to overcome anyone who beat them, they would adopt the enemy tactics and armour.
They faced something far more dangerous than the Mongols with the Parthians and Sassanids, also master of the horse bow, and their heavily armoured cataphracts. They suffered some severe defeats, wipeouts.
But they adapted their tactics, defeated them, plundered their lands, and adopted their tactics. The late Roman army's cataphracti equites were a direct copy of the system that had defeated them, and probably the foundation for the heavily armoured European knights.