Overly Glorified or Idealized Historical Figures

[lewisnotmiller]

About every man named "the great". That title usually goes together with war and conquest. I don't know what's "great" with killing, pillaging and stealing land.

Taken from the point of view of his own people, someone like Cyrus was Great because;
1. He was impactful, which is one way of measuring 'greatness' moreso than 'righteousness'.
2. He improved their lot. Sure, perhaps at the expense of others, but still...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In the same vein, Charlemagne I and Julius Caesar.

I'm curious...what do you mean by 'In the same vein...'

 

[Revoltingest]

I've been through Dresden. I'm not sure I'd agree (although perhaps you meant more specifically Tokyo).
But a lot of people are pretty...well..limited in their actual historical knowledge. Atomic bombs are catchier headlines.

Still, I think it's reasonable to question the second bomb.

We had 2 bombs.
The 1st didn't inspire surrender.
We were lucky the 2nd worked.

BTW, "Slaughterhouse Five" is a favorite.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

We had 2 bombs.
The 1st didn't inspire surrender.
We were lucky the 2nd worked.

BTW, "Slaughterhouse Five" is a favorite.

Your version of this is pretty brief, and lacks support. Although I would agree it's a popular version.

According to the US Strategic Bombing Survey, carried out in 1946;

It cannot be said, however, that the atomic bomb convinced the leaders who effected the peace of the necessity of surrender. The decision to seek ways and means to terminate the war, influenced in part by knowledge of the low state of popular morale, had been taken in May 1945 by the Supreme War Guidance Council.

In Japan as a whole, for example, military losses and failures, such as those at Saipan, the Philippines, and Okinawa, were twice as important as this atomic bomb in inducing certainty of defeat. Other raids over Japan as a whole were more than three times as important in this respect. Consumer deprivations, such as food shortages and the attendant malnutrition, were also more important in bringing people to the point where they felt they could not go on with the war.

Source : https://docs.rwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=rwu_ebooks

Nor was US command convinced of the neccessity...

In fact, seven out of eight top U.S. military commanders believed that it was unnecessary to use atomic bombs against Japan from a military-strategic vantage point, including Admirals Chester Nimitz, Ernest King, William Halsey, and William Leahy, and Generals Henry Arnold and Douglas MacArthur. According to Air Force historian Daniel Haulman, even Curtis LeMay believed “the new weapons were unnecessary, because his bombers were already destroying the Japanese cities.”

Admiral Leahy, Truman’s chief military advisor, wrote in his memoirs: “It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.”

Source : The Japanese Surrender in 1945 is Still Poorly Understood | History News Network

And internal memos indicated that they believed liberals in Japan would be able to secure a surrender without the need for a land invasion. Indeed, it specifically spoke to the need to limit bombing to military targets.

Source : https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/documents/atomic-bomb-end-world-war-ii/033.pdf

I can go either way on Hiroshima, in terms of whether the bombing was actually justified in the minds of those who ordered it. But Nagasaki is harder to justify by far.

And kudos for the Vonnegut reference but...somewhat ashamedly...I have to admit to only having seen the movie.
*blushes*

 

[Revoltingest]

Your version of this is pretty brief, and lacks support. Although I would agree it's a popular version.

According to the US Strategic Bombing Survey, carried out in 1946;

Source : https://docs.rwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=rwu_ebooks

Nor was US command convinced of the neccessity...

Source : The Japanese Surrender in 1945 is Still Poorly Understood | History News Network

And internal memos indicated that they believed liberals in Japan would be able to secure a surrender without the need for a land invasion. Indeed, it specifically spoke to the need to limit bombing to military targets.

Source : https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/documents/atomic-bomb-end-world-war-ii/033.pdf

I can go either way on Hiroshima, in terms of whether the bombing was actually justified in the minds of those who ordered it. But Nagasaki is harder to justify by far.

And kudos for the Vonnegut reference but...somewhat ashamedly...I have to admit to only having seen the movie.
*blushes*

I wasn't supporting an argument.
Just stating the facts.
(They're not opinions.)

BTW, I never said the atomic bombs were "necessary".
Only useful to avoid more USA deaths to get Japan to surrender.

 

[Heyo]

Taken from the point of view of his own people, someone like Cyrus was Great because;
1. He was impactful, which is one way of measuring 'greatness' moreso than 'righteousness'.
2. He improved their lot. Sure, perhaps at the expense of others, but still...

No reason for us to still call them "Great". Cyrus II of Persia would be just as accurate or Alexander of Macedonia.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I'm curious...what do you mean by 'In the same vein...'

Rulers who are regarded as "great and benevolent" but were monsters

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Japan hadn't surrendered. They were unwilling.

If you're hanging it on the physical act, yes they had not been able to surrender. Saying that they were unwilling is just flat wrong. In both June and July of 1945, before the bombs were dropped, Japan made several attempts at peace negotiations to end the war, recognizing that they could not win.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you're hanging it on the physical act, yes they had not been able to surrender. Saying that they were unwilling is just flat wrong. In both June and July of 1945, before the bombs were dropped, Japan made several attempts at peace negotiations to end the war, recognizing that they could not win.

Not permitted to surrender?
That's a new one.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Not permitted to surrender?
That's a new one.

That would be, if that's what I said.

 

[Augustus]

We were all dumb kids at one time! How can you judge someone Historical for owning slaves

This is just congratulating ourselves for having the wisdom to be born in a different time and place.

All you need to do to be a moral person is be part of the most recent generation and you are an ethical titan.

Who needs moral philosophy when the key to living a virtuous life is simply to be born later?

There is a realistic chance that all people in the future will see killing animals for food as barbaric.

I assume you have eaten meat at some point, should future people view you as a morally repugnant villain because you should have known better at a time when meat eating was common and the meat trade a normal commercial activity?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Rulers who are regarded as "great and benevolent" but were monsters

Hmm...fair enough.
I figured that was what you meant, and there was enough genocide sprinkled in to Caeser's Gaulish excursions, and Charlemagne's everything (basically) that I get your point.

I'm thinking there are two different buckets people who are overly glorified or idealised historical figures fit into, though.
1. The monsters, to put it bluntly
2. The ones who were largely ineffective or flat out bad, but have commonly been remembered 'kindly' by history.

I'd have John more in the latter group, whereas Charlemagne and Caeser were in the former. But that's just me and it really doesn't matter.
That's what drove my question, though.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This is just congratulating ourselves for having the wisdom to be born in a different time and place.

All you need to do to be a moral person is be part of the most recent generation and you are an ethical titan.

Who needs moral philosophy when the key to living a virtuous life is simply to be born later?

There is a realistic chance that all people in the future will see killing animals for food as barbaric.

I assume you have eaten meat at some point, should future people view you as a morally repugnant villain because you should have known better at a time when meat eating was common and the meat trade a normal commercial activity?

We do it with intelligence, too...commonly seeing ourselves as 'smarter' rather than having the benefit of accumulated knowledge as a starting point.

 

[Revoltingest]

That would be, if that's what I said.

Funny how 2 nuclear bombs conferred permission finally.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No reason for us to still call them "Great". Cyrus II of Persia would be just as accurate or Alexander of Macedonia.

Accurate?
*blinks*

In his own lifetime, Cyrus was described as 'The Father' by some Persians, 'The Liberator' by some Babylonians, and 'The Elder' by some Greeks.
He was also known as 'The King of the Four Corners of the World'.
I'm not sure how much 'accurate' comes into it...!

Still, there is no doubt on the outsized impact his rule had on world history. He is absolutely one of the most impactful humans ever. I struggle to think of any who have had a larger impact on human history, tbh.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Not permitted to surrender?
That's a new one.

It's not, really. The conditions of surrender were the sticking point, as they are at the end of most decisive conflicts.

 

[Augustus]

We do it with intelligence, too...commonly seeing ourselves as 'smarter' rather than having the benefit of accumulated knowledge as a starting point.

"Everyone in the past was stupid and immoral. It's so obvious...."

If it were obvious it wouldn't have taken 100,000 years of human history for people to work it out.

 

[Augustus]

It's not, really. The conditions of surrender were the sticking point, as they are at the end of most decisive conflicts.

My favourite one was Edward I when he was besieging Stirling Castle.

He spent ages building 'Warwolf' the biggest trebuchet ever. When it was nearly finished, those holding the Castle tried to surrender, but Edward refused to accept it and sent them back inside. After he'd pelted them a few times with Warwolf he said "Now you can surrender..."

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not, really. The conditions of surrender were the sticking point, as they are at the end of most decisive conflicts.

But does having conditions meaning surrender wasn't permitted?
No, that's a dubious claim. Although not as bad as claiming
that the Japanese had already surrendered.
But the 2 bombs did the job, even after killing greater numbers
in the firestorms. This suggests that fear of the weapon had
relatively greater value than the actual deaths.[/I]

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have been reading about Che Guevara and a few other prominent Marxists, and I find it disturbing that so many people don T-shirts or keep items bearing his visage in an idealizing manner. He had some good goals, such as liberation from imperialism, but some of his actions and words were dubious at best and, in my opinion, should definitely disqualify him from being held up as a role model to the extent where his image is on everyday items.

I suspect that many who participate in the pop-culture glorification of him either contribute to exploitation of third-world countries—which would make them inconsistent or at least misinformed about their own contribution to such or about what Guevara stood for—or would hate to live under the rule of someone with his overall mindset, which was extremely violent and unhesitant in being so.

I also similarly dislike glorification of Winston Churchill. He was a great leader for Britain during World War II, but he was also deeply racist even beyond the norms of his time and oversaw violent colonialism in multiple parts of the world.

Which historical figures do you think are overly glorified or idealized when they shouldn't be?

Abraham Lincoln, for one.

He's rightly praised for the Emancipation Proclamation, but he was never interested in full citizenship for freed enslaved people.

He supported plans for forced deportation of African-Americans off to either Africa or new colonies in Central America...an extreme form of segregation that was even controversial at the time.