Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 9th, 2017, 03:19 AM   #11

Gvelion's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Sep 2016
From: Georgia
Posts: 264

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawnmowerman View Post

17th - Louis XIV
Why do you think in 17th it's Louis XIV ?
Gvelion is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 9th, 2017, 03:45 AM   #12

Jake10's Avatar
Guardian Knight
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Canada
Posts: 11,954
Blog Entries: 5

Washington and his American troops did not defeat the British. Britain was defeated by French, Spanish and American troops. It was Franklin who was responsible for the European support. Without Franklin, the war would have been lost. Without Washington, the Americans might still have succeeded.

Not to mention the fact that, if not for Franklin, France might not have had a revolution.

Last edited by Jake10; November 9th, 2017 at 03:47 AM.
Jake10 is offline  
Old November 9th, 2017, 03:55 AM   #13
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 1,601

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake10 View Post
Washington and his American troops did not defeat the British. Britain was defeated by French, Spanish and American troops. It was Franklin who was responsible for the European support. Without Franklin, the war would have been lost. Without Washington, the Americans might still have succeeded.

Not to mention the fact that, if not for Franklin, France might not have had a revolution.
Yes, but France's agreement to help the Americans was predicated on America still being around. If not for the evacuation at Long Island or the attacks at Trenton and Princeton, I think the war would have been over and that equally or more talented generals than Washington wouldn't have done those two things Washington did that A saved his army and B restored hope in a lost cause and saved the Continental Army that was about to mostly go home and quit. Saratoga, the alliance with France none of it's relevant if the British won total victory over Washington in 1776 or the spring of 1777.

Last edited by Emperor of Wurttemburg 43; November 9th, 2017 at 03:58 AM.
Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 is online now  
Old November 9th, 2017, 03:59 AM   #14

Lawnmowerman's Avatar
Cutting your grass
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 9,838
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gvelion View Post
Why do you think in 17th it's Louis XIV ?
It's late and I'm about to go to be so I'm just going to copy paste from Wikki.

Arguably, Louis also applied himself indirectly to "the alleviation of the burdens of [his] subjects." For example, he patronised the arts, encouraged industry, fostered trade and commerce, and sponsored the founding of an overseas empire. Moreover, the significant reduction in civil wars and aristocratic rebellions during his reign are seen by these historians as the result of Louis' consolidation of royal authority over feudal elites.[103] In their analysis, his early reforms centralised France and marked the birth of the modern French state. They regard the political and military victories as well as numerous cultural achievements as the means by which Louis helped raise France to a preeminent position in Europe.[104] Europe came to admire France for its military and cultural successes, power, and sophistication. Europeans generally began to emulate French manners, values, goods, and deportment. French became the universal language of the European elite.
Lawnmowerman is offline  
Old November 9th, 2017, 06:41 AM   #15

Jake10's Avatar
Guardian Knight
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Canada
Posts: 11,954
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Yes, but France's agreement to help the Americans was predicated on America still being around. If not for the evacuation at Long Island or the attacks at Trenton and Princeton, I think the war would have been over and that equally or more talented generals than Washington wouldn't have done those two things Washington did that A saved his army and B restored hope in a lost cause and saved the Continental Army that was about to mostly go home and quit. Saratoga, the alliance with France none of it's relevant if the British won total victory over Washington in 1776 or the spring of 1777.
You can only sneak away in the middle of the night so many times until you get caught. It was only a matter of time until Washington was going to lose. Don't get me wrong, Washington was an excellent general, who overcame the odds. But, we're not just talking about the war, this is the most important person of the century we're talking about. When we consider Franklin's contributions to science, writing and the US, he's more important. And, as I said before, he changed Europe. Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette would have probably kept their heads if they hadn't invested so much into his ideas without demanding much in return. So, Franklin changed, not just America, but the world.
Jake10 is offline  
Old November 9th, 2017, 06:42 AM   #16

The Keen Edge's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jan 2016
From: United States, MO
Posts: 461

I think that the 17th century should go to John Locke or Issac Newton while the 18th century goes to Adam Smith and the 19th goes to Marx. Im still undecided about other centuries.
The Keen Edge is offline  
Old November 9th, 2017, 07:38 AM   #17
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 1,601

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake10 View Post
You can only sneak away in the middle of the night so many times until you get caught. It was only a matter of time until Washington was going to lose. Don't get me wrong, Washington was an excellent general, who overcame the odds. But, we're not just talking about the war, this is the most important person of the century we're talking about. When we consider Franklin's contributions to science, writing and the US, he's more important. And, as I said before, he changed Europe. Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette would have probably kept their heads if they hadn't invested so much into his ideas without demanding much in return. So, Franklin changed, not just America, but the world.
Let me clarify I don't think Washington or Franklin belong anywhere near that title of most important of the century. Just saying that Washington(who I don't think was a really good general) made one or two very lucky calls that due to the outlier nature is something I believe other generals better or not would have done. He's also the namesake of Washington DC the US's political centre of power.

Saying Washington's more deserving than Franklin not that either are deserving. My pick for that century is Frederick.

Last edited by Emperor of Wurttemburg 43; November 9th, 2017 at 08:17 AM.
Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 is online now  
Old November 10th, 2017, 02:27 AM   #18

Gvelion's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Sep 2016
From: Georgia
Posts: 264

Why not Russo , Monteskiue, didro and etc. for 18th century ?
Gvelion is offline  
Old November 10th, 2017, 03:38 AM   #19

Jake10's Avatar
Guardian Knight
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Canada
Posts: 11,954
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gvelion View Post
Why not Russo , Monteskiue, didro and etc. for 18th century ?
Maybe we should have a thread with a poll just for that century alone.
Jake10 is offline  
Old November 10th, 2017, 05:24 AM   #20
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 46

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnincornwall View Post
Saladin is only listed as he is the largest in our psyche and part of out 'crusade' thing. I would have thought the whole Almohad thing affected more people and more space. So that would be either Ibn Tumart for the ideas or Abd Al Mu'min for enacting! Saladin asked to borrow part of their fleet once (I think that was in the time of Al Nasr). But it was busy preparing to take the Balearics from Banu Ganiya. Or more likely they just said no, as an ally of Saladin had given them some grief around the Tripoli area (North Africa) some time before

Isabella of Castille? Ferdinand called the shots for sure. Every account I've read of their wars and troubles. They were a great pair that is certain, two great individuals and I bet they had some fairly interesting discussions behind closed doors - but I would have quoted either both or just Ferdinand.
I would say that Ferdinand edges out Isabella since it was his decision to sponsor Columbus, lol.
mcpon is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
century, important, person



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The 20th century: the most eventful and important century in human history lokariototal General History 22 July 2nd, 2013 12:36 PM
Most important person in 2nd - 6th century AD Historyen Ancient History 29 June 17th, 2013 10:02 PM
Most important person of the 12th century? Formosus Medieval and Byzantine History 39 November 30th, 2012 08:46 AM
Who do you think is the most important person in world history? Ian The Poet General History 36 November 19th, 2009 06:17 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.