Debate on Historical Significance

[Sriad]

Joseph Montgolfier and Jacques Montgolfier are out of the question.

I'd like to applaud your teacher for that bit, although it is probably based on the actions of a smart-ass student from a previous class.

I would pick someone who'd be a lot of fun to argue for, and who'd give me a chance to educate my class about an important figure (but not TOO obscure), rather than shooting for the most indispensable person in history.

Digging into the founding of the Royal Society and going with whichever Natural Philosopher you think was most central would be a good choice for both indispensability and being interesting. Looking further back in history, so would Confucius or Solon.

[The Guid]

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.

Woah woah woah... what's all the bitchiness towards Henry Tudor?

[KrauserKrauser]

Mitochondrial Eve. Game Over.

Also, depending on the relgious affiliation of the university: Jesus, Moses, Mohammad, Buddha, Confucios, Virgin Mary, L. Ron Hubbard

A more serious answer: Queen Elizabeth if in Britain, Washington in the US, Mao / Yuan Ti in China, it would have to change based on the audience if my survival is key. Why would a Chinese Communications student give a shit about Augustus or Washington when Yuan Ti unified China and Mao took over from there.

[General Zod]

Mitochondrial Eve. Game Over.

. . . .yeah, how about no? Mitochondrial Eve is only the oldest known most common ancestor. Even if you eliminated the person currently labeled as such, someone else would end up with the label. It's less of a person and more a title, really.

[Thanas]

Mitochondrial Eve. Game Over.

*snicker* Eh, nope.

A more serious answer: Queen Elizabeth if in Britain

Why?

[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.

Woah woah woah... what's all the bitchiness towards Henry Tudor?

Richard III was better. In the three years in which he was king he created England's first system of bail and made all laws be written in English to that regular English people could understand them. He was also just about the only noble in England at the time who had never been paid off by the French.

The Tudor anti-Yorkist propaganda was a blatant injustice.

[KrauserKrauser]

Why?

Well name recognition and gender for one. I admit I haven't read much about her but if Hollywood is any indicator, her rule was significant in British history. Spanish Armada, funding of Shakespeare, that's about all I can think of. Who would you pick in a British environment?

[The Guid]

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.

Woah woah woah... what's all the bitchiness towards Henry Tudor?

Richard III was better. In the three years in which he was king he created England's first system of bail and made all laws be written in English to that regular English people could understand them. He was also just about the only noble in England at the time who had never been paid off by the French.

The Tudor anti-Yorkist propaganda was a blatant injustice.

Yes... there was just that small matter of killing his own nephews in cold blood to worry about and then he's a saint! I love the idea by implication that Henry Tudor was paid off by the French when he damned well invaded France to get his 10,000 per year pension. Richard III reigned over a kingdom that was in chaos, in his few short years there was massive unrest, unrest that was only eventually brought under control by Henry Tudor. If it wasn't for Henry Tudor England would have been even more of an ignorable nation than it was becoming due to the Wars of the Roses which Richard III never had the moral authority to end.

[Thanas]

Why?

Well name recognition and gender for one. I admit I haven't read much about her but if Hollywood is any indicator,

And that is where you lose.

her rule was significant in British history. Spanish Armada,

Followed by the bigger disaster of the English Armada.....oh, and state bankruptcy for the win.

Too funny English movies never mention those, right?

funding of Shakespeare,

and of course the chopping off hands from people who dared to write against her....

Who would you pick in a British environment?

In a British environment? William the conquerer, the two Greys, Churchill, Cromwell and wellington come first to mind.

Of those, Grey and Cromwell have to go because nobody knows about them, Wellington was always overrated compared to other generals of his era, and thus it comes down to William and Churchill. Based on the overwhelming wank taught about Churchill, I think it is clear who should be picked.

[TheManWithNoName]

I picked Augustus. I should know who I will be up against soon - I'll keep you posted.

[TheManWithNoName]

Alright, I just got my bracket. I'll be debating Ben Franklin, Churchill, Martin Luther, and Truman.

I've definitely got a lot of research to do... However, any quantity of notes is allowed. Is there anything in particular that I should push for given my opponents?

[erik_t]

Haha. You could bring a few copies of TBO

Somewhat more seriously, there's a solid chance that Churchillguy and Trumanguy are going to argue that WW2 would be lost without one or the other of them. This argument is easy to defeat from a simple technical perspective, although how to convey the B-36's effective immunity to interception before the early 1950s will be challenging. What's the academic background of your opponents?

[Samuel]

Ben Franklin was one of the Founding Fathers... and since there was about 70+ of them, he isn't exactly indispensible.

Churchill you can point out the fact that England would have won even without him, so his existance isn't required. Point out how his imperialistic meddling was bad.

Martin Luther caused the Protestant Reformation. Either it was inevitable, in which case he wasn't essential or he was and you can blame him for the ensuing religious wars.

Is there anything Truman did that another FDR VP couldn't have done?

Haha. You could bring a few copies of TBO

Somewhat more seriously, there's a solid chance that Churchillguy and Trumanguy are going to argue that WW2 would be lost without one or the other of them. This argument is easy to defeat from a simple technical perspective, although how to convey the B-36's effective immunity to interception before the early 1950s will be challenging. What's the academic background of your opponents?

I'm pretty sure nuking the Reich would drastically change history. However, I doubt that Churchill was the only thing standing between England and defeat. Is there anything he did that any militistic PM couldn't have done?

[erik_t]

Oh, certainly it would change history. But the Axis would not have won, which is the argument I'd expect to see made.

[Darth Wong]

No votes for Constantine?

Anyway, it seems that the older historical figures have a distinct advantage here, if only because the sheer amount of history following them is larger, so the effects of their absence would be magnified. Pitting any WW2 leader against one of the early Roman leaders begs the question of how we know the nations of France and Germany would even exist in their present form at all if not for the way the Roman Empire developed.

History is cumulative, ie- subsequent events build upon prior events. So, it stands to reason that the farther back you go, the larger the ripple effects of any change will be.

[Captain Seafort]

However, I doubt that Churchill was the only thing standing between England and defeat. Is there anything he did that any militaristic PM couldn't have done?

It wasn't a case of "any militaristic PM", but one of "who in 1940 was in a position to become PM and was bloody-minded enough to keep going after the fall of France". Answer - no one. It was a toss-up between Churchill and Halifax, and the latter was one of the most prominent advocates of an armistice in 1940.

In a British environment? William the conquerer, the two Greys, Churchill, Cromwell and wellington come first to mind.

Why Wellington rather than Marlborough?

[Edi]

In a British environment? William the conquerer, the two Greys, Churchill, Cromwell and wellington come first to mind.

Of these, William the Conqueror has undeniably had the most impact on world history. If he had lost, we would be communicating in an entirely different language than modern English even if most of the rest of history had gone along the same tracks it did. The history of the UK would be different, with Saxon kings and other stuff. Modern English would never develop, because it developed by suborning the French used by the Norman French nobility that was imposed on the country.

A massive amount of other things flow from that, and because languages differ in how and why ideas are expressed and communicated even on a conceptual level, there is no telling what would come of that. We might be using French or some other language as the lingua franca in the modern world, or even Old English, or something else, but if somebody took the writings of this board, for example and transplanted into that alternate historical timeline, it would probably look to them very much like Old English looks to us: Recognize a word here and there and everything else would be gibberish.

Of course, if you just substitute some other Norman French noble for William the Conqueror and that noble wins at Hastings, nothing will be different. If he loses and the Saxons win, then it becomes the alternate. And that was a very close battle.

[Darth Wong]

Of course, if you just substitute some other Norman French noble for William the Conqueror and that noble wins at Hastings, nothing will be different. If he loses and the Saxons win, then it becomes the alternate. And that was a very close battle.

Maybe we should be voting for the archer who fired that fateful arrow

[Isolder74]

Of course, if you just substitute some other Norman French noble for William the Conqueror and that noble wins at Hastings, nothing will be different. If he loses and the Saxons win, then it becomes the alternate. And that was a very close battle.

Maybe we should be voting for the archer who fired that fateful arrow

it's too bad we don't know his name, isn't it.

[TheManWithNoName]

My professor said he'd try his best to group similar historical figures in the same balloon (the feminist balloon, for example), but I was the only one to pick somebody that old. I definitely agree with Darth Wong - I still think that I'm at a distinct advantage due to the fact that Augustus is so much older. The guy who picked Truman is a good debater, but the others, not as much - although I'm not sure about the Churchill guy. None of them have a historical background, but then again, neither do I.

There were some interesting choices overall. We have Lincoln, MLK and multiple Ben Franklins, as you'd expect. Surprisingly, there are two Bill Gates this time around. In the past, Hugh Heffner was picked. The kid came in full costume, and two girls on his arms. Another smartass picked the professor's mom. Needless to say, he was swiftly eliminated. One jackass who picked one of Montgolfier brothers was the first to go. Besides the fact that the audience recognized it as a cheap tactic, the jackass forgot about the fact that the other brother he didn't pick could've carried on the work, essentially rendering his eviction meaningless.

[TheManWithNoName]

Okay, Churchill got moved. Queen Elizabeth I is in his place now.

[Thanas]

No votes for Constantine?

Great emperor and one with large effects on history, but Augustus seem to be a better example for the start of the Roman Empire, whereas Diocletian or Justinian seem to be the more important figures regarding late antiquity.

In any case, few people now about Constantine and his real achievements, I bet even among the population of this board a lot of people still believe that he was the first christian monarch.

In a British environment? William the conquerer, the two Greys, Churchill, Cromwell and wellington come first to mind.

Why Wellington rather than Marlborough?

Because I believe his two contemporaries (Eugene of Savoy and de Villars) to be more important. De Villars was IMO the best general of the three, while Eugene had much more of an effect on history than Marlborough. Against the accomplishments of Prince Eugene Marlborough looks quite small.

And in the contest between Marlborough and Wellington the latter gets much better press - listening to British people talking about him you'd actually believe he was the best general of the Napoleonic wars, an opinion which would be laughed at in continental Europe.

[Captain Seafort]

Because I believe his two contemporaries (Eugene of Savoy and de Villars) to be more important. De Villars was IMO the best general of the three, while Eugene had much more of an effect on history than Marlborough. Against the accomplishments of Prince Eugene Marlborough looks quite small.

Good point regarding Eugene, although I'd nitpick over your use of the word "small" - preventing the French hegemony that was a distinct possibility as of 1704, while less important than Vienna, was something of an achievement, albeit one achieved with plenty of assistance from Eugene.

Regarding Marlborough vs Villars I'd definitely dispute the relative merits of the two. While Villars was certainly the best of his opponents, he was never able to stop Marlborough, only slow him down. At Malplaquet he failed to achieve his objective of relieving Mons (and the successful extrication of the French army from the gap is probably better attributed to Boufflers in any event), and while Arleau caught Marlborough napping, the subsequent passage of the lines returned the favour.

[Thanas]

Because I believe his two contemporaries (Eugene of Savoy and de Villars) to be more important. De Villars was IMO the best general of the three, while Eugene had much more of an effect on history than Marlborough. Against the accomplishments of Prince Eugene Marlborough looks quite small.

Good point regarding Eugene, although I'd nitpick over your use of the word "small" - preventing the French hegemony that was a distinct possibility as of 1704, while less important than Vienna, was something of an achievement, albeit one achieved with plenty of assistance from Eugene.

Meh. The gains made by Marlborough were squandered by the British Parliament when they abandoned their allies and left Eugene in the lurch. In the end, Eugene and Villars had more impact on the global scale because Marlborough's achievement did not prevent French continental hegemony.

Regarding Marlborough vs Villars I'd definitely dispute the relative merits of the two. While Villars was certainly the best of his opponents, he was never able to stop Marlborough, only slow him down.

Which, considering the state of the french army and the global situation, was quite the achievement.

At Malplaquet he failed to achieve his objective of relieving Mons (and the successful extrication of the French army from the gap is probably better attributed to Boufflers in any event),

Which doesn't change the fact that Malplaquet was at best a Pyrrhic victory. When Villars was free to act and not being forced to run a defence, he absolutely smashed his opponents.

Also, the terrific casualties suffered at Malplaquet were the turning point - though they captured Mons, the allies were unable to follow up on it.

and while Arleau caught Marlborough napping, the subsequent passage of the lines returned the favour.

That is true, however note that Villars always commanded the inferior army whereas Marlborough always had the freedom of choosing where to attack.

[TheManWithNoName]

What kind of arguments do you suspect they'll make against me?