Debate on Historical Significance

[TheManWithNoName]

Here's an interesting debate that my Communication class is doing. It sounds like a fun idea, and I thought it would be fun to see your responses. Here it is, straight from the syllabus:

Students will be organized into groups of five to six. These groups will engage in a "debate" similar to the forms used in the presidential primary debates. In other words, these will less actual debates and more a series of statements with opportunities for response. Each student will assume the persona of a figure in history. Each of you is in a mythical balloon hovering over shark-infested waters. the balloon is sinking due to the excess weight and the participants need to decide who to throw overboard as ballast and who to save. Your job is to use your speeches to present arguments for your own preservation and the ejection of others. You may choose to allocate your time however you see fir and may use any argument you see fit to achieve the objective of being the last survivor. If you are thrown out, any effects you will have had on history will disappear.

Format: Each participant will be given five minutes for an opening statement. After the opening statements, each participant will have the opportunity for a 2 minute rebuttal statement. After the rebuttals, a vote will be taken for whom to eject first. After the first ejection, the remaining participants will have one minute each to summarize and advocate before the next vote. The process will continue until 2 people remain. The last two participants will have two minutes each to wight the advantages and disadvantages of keeping one person over another. Opening statements must contain both arguments in support of your character and arguments using the ejection of others. The initial 2-minute rebuttal statement can only respond to attacks from others or extend arguments initially offered in the consecutive speeches. No new lines of argument may be introduced in the rebuttal stage of the debate.

I would prefer that you not select figures that would invoke ferocious controversy (Hitler, David Duke, Pol Pot), or deities/prophets. Joseph Montgolfier and Jacques Montgolfier are out of the question. Mythical characters such as Santa Claus are also prohibited.

Overall, it seems like a very interesting idea. Obviously, the character you select plays a huge role.

Who would you pick?

[Thanas]

Historical significance?

Easy.

Alexander the Great, Caesar, Augustus, Marcus Aurelius, Domitian, Constantine, Justinian, Charlemagne, Carlos V, Richelieu, Louis XIV, Frederick the Great, Peter I, Rosseau, Jefferson, Washington, Napoleon, Bismarck, Churchill, FDR all come to mind.

Now, a lot of those need you having detailed information on the subjects. That leaves out Marcus Aurelius, Justinian, Carlos V, Richelieu, Rosseau, Peter I, Frederick the Great. You also want to avoid choosing a figure that is unpopular, which eliminates Domitian (for the "persecution" of christianity"), Bismarck (he is german and most people equate german=nazi).

Now, we have Alexander, Caesar, Augustus, Constantine, Charlemagne, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Churchill, FDR.


Of those, Alexander is controversial so I'll leave him out. I'll also eliminate Charlemagne since he is the lightweight here and most people think he was french (he wasn't). For the same reasons, Louis XIV has to go.

That gives Caesar, Augustus, Constantine, Churchill and FDR. I will eliminate Churchill and Constantine for the reasons that most americans are not very familiar with them. Ceasar I will also eliminate because most people only know him as a general.

That leaves you with Augustus and FDR. Of the two, I would definitely argue in favor of Augustus, as his contributions are way more important than those of FDR, but you might want to go for FDR since he probably has more name recognition than Augustus does.

So yeah, for me it is Augustus.

[spaceviking]

Louis XIV wasn't French, what?

[TC Pilot]

Hmm, with Augustus down, coming up with one-better is going to be difficult, though I can't say it'll be easy explaining his accomplishment. If you want to try pandering to an American audience, go for Washington. Beyond those two, Alexander the Great for Antiquity, Genghis Khan for the Middle Ages. My choice gets a lot blurrier the more modern we go, but Charles V seems the best for the early modern period, if not Louis XIV, and then Napoleon, Bismarck, or Hitler for the modern period.

I'll throw in a few non-leaders just to mix it up: Aristotle, Martin Luther, Johannes Gutenberg, Columbus, Copernicus, Francis Bacon, Newton, James Watt, Darwin, Tesla, Einstein, Richard Feynman, Paul Erdos...

Going by Thanas' model, Luther and Columbus would probably be the most controversial, with Darwin in a more distant third. Erdos, Feynman, and Einstein would probably need the most detailed analysis. Darwin and Newton also developed some of their contributions nearly simultaneously with others.

Any of the remaining five, Aristotle, Gutenberg, Bacon, Watt, and Tesla, will do. What kind of world would we be in without logic? Or books? Or the scientific method? Or industry? Or electricity?

[General Zod]

Would Shakespeare count as controversial?

[B5B7]

How about choosing an historical figure that people would be more inclined to save? Examples are Louis Pasteur, Edward Jenner, Lady Ada Lovelace - mathematician, programmer, also pretty, tragically died young, daughter of Lord Byron the poet; some other beautiful, intelligent woman.
Or someone respected by most, or someone most people would love to have a conversation with. Or choose someone who is very light - that is a justification not to have them sacrificed.

[TheKwas]

Richard Sorge

Play up the angle that his information allowed the Soviet Union to relocate trops from Siberia to the Western front and that these troops were the turning point in WWII, thus Richard Sorge, moreso than any political leader, was the single most important man in winning WWII.

[Thanas]

Louis XIV wasn't French, what?

People think him to be french, and french just doesn't sell in America.

Richard Sorge

Play up the angle that his information allowed the Soviet Union to relocate trops from Siberia to the Western front and that these troops were the turning point in WWII, thus Richard Sorge, moreso than any political leader, was the single most important man in winning WWII.

Actually, there is quite a debate if Sorge really was that important. That said, I doubt that people would vote for someone they never heard of if the choice was...him or say, Washington.

Hmm, with Augustus down, coming up with one-better is going to be difficult, though I can't say it'll be easy explaining his accomplishment. If you want to try pandering to an American audience, go for Washington. Beyond those two, Alexander the Great for Antiquity, Genghis Khan for the Middle Ages. My choice gets a lot blurrier the more modern we go, but Charles V seems the best for the early modern period, if not Louis XIV, and then Napoleon, Bismarck, or Hitler for the modern period.

I'll throw in a few non-leaders just to mix it up: Aristotle, Martin Luther, Johannes Gutenberg, Columbus, Copernicus, Francis Bacon, Newton, James Watt, Darwin, Tesla, Einstein, Richard Feynman, Paul Erdos...

Going by Thanas' model, Luther and Columbus would probably be the most controversial, with Darwin in a more distant third. Erdos, Feynman, and Einstein would probably need the most detailed analysis. Darwin and Newton also developed some of their contributions nearly simultaneously with others.

Any of the remaining five, Aristotle, Gutenberg, Bacon, Watt, and Tesla, will do. What kind of world would we be in without logic? Or books? Or the scientific method? Or industry? Or electricity?

That is a good idea, choosing non-leaders. Though Genghis Khan isn't really that great a choice, methinks...I thing people would have a tendency to throw the genocidal aggressor out first.

Out of the final five you mentioned, I think Gutenberg or Aristotle are the best candidates, with Gutenberg coming in first. Bacon, Watt and Tesla need explaining, as does Aristotle, though to a much lesser degree. But Gutenberg is easy to explain and everyone should see the need for him not getting thrown out.

[TheKwas]

Actually, there is quite a debate if Sorge really was that important. That said, I doubt that people would vote for someone they never heard of if the choice was...him or say, Washington.

That just makes it easier to trumph up his achievements and downplay his shortcomings Debates are won by persuasion, not truth.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

"The name's Robespierre. I am the People. Therefore, I cannot be thrown out, since if I am thrown out everyone else here is thrown out equally. Quod erat demonstratum.

...

Plus, if you vote me off, Saint-Juste over there will fuck you up. That bitch be craaazy, and I should know."

[TheManWithNoName]

I was actually thinking someone like Washington when I first saw the prompt. Augustus seems like the best idea so far. I like Gutenberg as well.

One thing that I may have not been clear in the original post:

If you are thrown out of the balloon, any effects you will have had on history will disappear.

[Lusankya]

I'd have a laugh choosing Henry Tudor and then deliberately getting thrown out of the balloon. Of course, the lack of Tudor England might be considered controversial, in which case I'd just go with Henry Ford or someone like that.

[Tahlan]

That leaves you with Augustus and FDR. Of the two, I would definitely argue in favor of Augustus, as his contributions are way more important than those of FDR....So yeah, for me it is Augustus.

How in the world are Augustus "contributions...way more important than those of FDR?" Do you care to elaborate?

[Thanas]

That leaves you with Augustus and FDR. Of the two, I would definitely argue in favor of Augustus, as his contributions are way more important than those of FDR....So yeah, for me it is Augustus.

How in the world are Augustus "contributions...way more important than those of FDR?" Do you care to elaborate?

The man essentially built the Roman Empire. Are you honestly saying that FDR's new deal trumps building an empire that lasted for over 1400 years and is still regarded as the most powerful one in the history of western civilization? That had enormous cultural and linguistic influence to the present day? Like his name being synonymous with being the ruler of a country? The end of the roman empire being interpreted as the end of the world?

Sorry, but against that, FDR does not even come close.

[Samuel]

I think you are loking at this wrong. You need someone irreplacable. The people you named could have had someone else sub in for them (well, the scientists and several of the politcians). You need someone who cannot be replaced, who was pivitol because of their existance. Alexander would work, but I don't know if having a divergent history without him would be bad.

[Thanas]

Anyone could have had someone else sub in for them. Name me one historical figure that could not have been subbed in by anyone else with the same skillset.

[General Zod]

Anyone could have had someone else sub in for them. Name me one historical figure that could not have been subbed in by anyone else with the same skillset.

I hear connections are just as important if not more so than skillsets? It's arguable some of them could have done the same job but if any of these historical figures hadn't known the people they did would they have had anywhere near the same influence?

[Thanas]

Anyone could have had someone else sub in for them. Name me one historical figure that could not have been subbed in by anyone else with the same skillset.

I hear connections are just as important if not more so than skillsets? It's arguable some of them could have done the same job but if any of these historical figures hadn't known the people they did would they have had anywhere near the same influence?

Yes, that is true. For example, if Augustus did not have Maecenas and Agrippa, he would have been nothing. Augustus was a great people person and coordinator, Maecenas was the great writer, Agrippa was one of the greatest political and military minds in Rome.

So yes, those are important. However, if you substitute them for people with similar skillsets as the three have, it is entirely possible they would have achieved the same.

What I am trying to get at - and possibly failing to convey - is that making the argument that someone can be substituted and is therefore not a good candidate - is not worth much, because history does not record what might have been, but what happened. Nobody really was irreplacable and that much outstanding, but what matters is that a particular group of people succeded. Whether they could be substituted or not has no bearing on that. Success and failure is all that counts here IMO.

[Samuel]

Anyone could have had someone else sub in for them. Name me one historical figure that could not have been subbed in by anyone else with the same skillset.

Same skillset is the rub. What if you only have one individual in place that has the skills? Remember, they are being removed- not being replaced by a substitute.

[Thanas]

Anyone could have had someone else sub in for them. Name me one historical figure that could not have been subbed in by anyone else with the same skillset.

Same skillset is the rub. What if you only have one individual in place that has the skills? Remember, they are being removed- not being replaced by a substitute.

Like I said above, that argument hardly matters with regards to historical significance. Columbus could have easily been replaced by any other spanish captain who believed the earth was round, but that does not change the fact that he "discovered" America.

Like I said, the historical success of someone cannot be replaced, but the person can.

[Adrian Laguna]

Louis XIV wasn't French, what?

People think him to be french, and french just doesn't sell in America.

He ruled France, spoke in French, was born in France, and the same applies to his father. I think that's plenty dammed French by most people's standards.

From what I know of things, the Bourbons are a branch of House Capet, which had been ruling the Kingdom of France since the 10th century. Louis XIV's granddaddy was, however, King of Navarre before he was King of France, and his ancestors had been hanging out in Navarre for centuries. That I guess makes Sun King more Basque than French through his paternal line. However, if you start adding the women who gave birth to the members of said paternal line things get muddled. Louis XIV's mother was Anne of Austria, his father's mother was and Marie de Medici. If we assume that at this point apparent ethnicities are the actual ones, then Louis XIV was a quarter Basque, a quarter Italian, and half German. But since he ruled France and acted like he was French, I'm quite happy to not bother with the particulars and just consider him to be as French as anyone else in the country.

Really, for European nobility trying to pin any sort of ethnicity on them is a pain in the ass and generally futile without some having very large family trees on hand, because they happily intermarried each other. Which means that any given one of them could be everything but the ethnicity of the guys they were lording it over, not much different, or a mix of the locals and every other group in the continent.

[Thanas]

Louis XIV wasn't French, what?

People think him to be french, and french just doesn't sell in America.

He ruled France, spoke in French, was born in France, and the same applies to his father. I think that's plenty dammed French by most people's standards.

From what I know of things, the Bourbons are a branch of House Capet, which had been ruling the Kingdom of France since the 10th century. Louis XIV's granddaddy was, however, King of Navarre before he was King of France, and his ancestors had been hanging out in Navarre for centuries. That I guess makes Sun King more Basque than French through his paternal line. However, if you start adding the women who gave birth to the members of said paternal line things get muddled. Louis XIV's mother was Anne of Austria, his father's mother was and Marie de Medici. If we assume that at this point apparent ethnicities are the actual ones, then Louis XIV was a quarter Basque, a quarter Italian, and half German. But since he ruled France and acted like he was French, I'm quite happy to not bother with the particulars and just consider him to be as French as anyone else in the country.

Really, for European nobility trying to pin any sort of ethnicity on them is a pain in the ass and generally futile without some having very large family trees on hand, because they happily intermarried each other. Which means that any given one of them could be everything but the ethnicity of the guys they were lording it over, not much different, or a mix of the locals and every other group in the continent.

How does that go against anything I said? I never said that he wasn't french.

[Havok]

No you didn't.

Of those, Alexander is controversial so I'll leave him out. I'll also eliminate Charlemagne since he is the lightweight here and most people think he was french (he wasn't). For the same reasons, Louis XIV has to go.

Then spaceviking misread what you said...

Louis XIV wasn't French, what?

Thinking you were eliminating Louis XIV for the reason that he is not French, and not because he was "controversial" and a "lightweight".

Then you responded with this, which confused the situation more.

Louis XIV wasn't French, what?

People think him to be french, and french just doesn't sell in America.

Which lead to Adrian's response and your last one. Just a bit of misunderstanding.

See. I read these even if I can't always participate.

[Thanas]

And Havok clears it up. Well done.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

The Butterfly Effect makes this pretty much meaningless. What if there was no Washington? Then maybe a benevolent British Empire ended slavery by 1830, sorted out tribal allegiances in Africa, and nipped Bolshevism in the bud. Maybe it means a resurgent British White Supremacist Movement starts a nuclear war in 1920 after the Prusso-Russian Alliance wins the Great Game and invades India. Maybe something else.

Maybe if Augustus dies then the Roman Republic survives as a European power until 700 and the resultant states, semi-Parliamentarian Republics rather than feudal monarchies, which spring off from it progress to the Moon by 1500. Maybe not. One could easily argue either.

As such, I think the only people who should be kept on the balloon should be scientists. We know that, even if their achievements would be replicated, they were the first and therefore most progressive people to get on the boat.

Then again, if Charlemagne kicks it, Newton is wiped from ever existing by butterflies, so that makes this even more an exercise in futility and conjecture.