StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Man, I'm catching up on this thread, and this does seem like a cool idea. Perhaps it could be organized here on the board?

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

The most used argument I've seen is that Augustus didn't do it alone, aka "he needed Agrippa and Maecenas to do the job". To best counter that tell them that Augustus was in charge and that there is not one succesful leader in history who did not delegate. Then I would turn that argument around and say that precisely because Augustus was able to ensure the loyalty of ambitious and smart men and understand his own limitation, he deserves to be the praised for it, not condemmed, because after all many others fell prey to hubris, while he did not.

The second argument will be the defeat of Varus. Remind them that this did not alter the balance of power in the slightest and that indeed, only a small portion of the gains (and according to Tacitus the least valuable of them) was lost and that the main objective of the germanic campaigns, the security of the subjugated tribes on the left side of the Rhine, was achieved.

The third argument might be that he turned the republic into a monarchy. Counter that with the claim that Augustus brought stability and ended decades of brutal civil wars.

The fourth argument might be proscription. Acknowledge the horror of it, but also say that in the end, the loss of 2000 lives might have been little compared to the casualties of just one battle in the civil war (Read up on Pharsalus) and that Augustus succeeded in preventing another one.

Emphasize heavily the peace and prosperity he brought to the empire, the succesful expansion and most important of all, his impact on history (His titles becoming synonyms for the highest honours and the highest power, roman law, engineering etc, all of which he brought to the whole of Europe).

Tell them that his policies are the reasons for the culture of Europe existing as it does today and then, If you want to engage in hyperbole, you might just as well call him the first father of Europe.

Havok wrote:Man, I'm catching up on this thread, and this does seem like a cool idea. Perhaps it could be organized here on the board?

I'd be up for it.

Thanks man. I really do think I'm at a distinct advantage here compared to my opponents overall. Any suggestions for dealing with Truman, Elizabeth and Luther?

Elizabeth is the easiest one - point out that in the end, her politics made no real difference when it came to the balance of power. The Spanish armada is overhyped - it was a setback, but not one that set Spain back for more than a few years.

Remind them of the failure of the English Armada. Funny how no brit talks about that. The Spanish lost around 5000-8000 men in total in the Spanish Armada, but the English Armada lost over 18.000. So whatever advantage England might have had was wasted the following year.

Also, remind them that Spain then almost eliminated the threat of english pirateering through good shipbuilding and anti-piracy tactics.

Against Elizabeth make sure that although she is often painted as the defender against Spanish barbarism, you remind them that she had no problem chopping of the hands or heads of those who dared to write against her. In fact, you can argue that her execution of Mary of Stuart is only one of three times where a female monarch was executed (the others being Marie Antoinette and Alexandra Feodorovna Romanova).

*************

Against Luther I would similarly argue that he is overhyped - he was just one of many reformers. Sure, his translation of the bible is a monumental step, but there were other reformes as well (Jan Hus, Calvin etc). Also, if you want to engage in character assassination, point out his despicable views about jews and women.

Furthermore, he needed protection from the nobility to spread his ideas and there is a good chance that without Gustavus Adolphus the protestant cause would have collapsed in the thirty years war.

************

I do not feel comfortable arguing against Truman as modern american history is not my specialty.

************

Thanas wrote: ************

I do not feel comfortable arguing against Truman as modern american history is not my specialty.

************

Seriously NoName. You can't expect the man to do all your work for you.

Havok wrote: Seriously NoName. You can't expect the man to do all your work for you.

I was just looking for some suggestions...

Much appreciated Thanas. If I may ask, what is your historical background?

I am a historian.