Civil Discourse: A History Thread

[The Grand Fifth Imperium]

Ok. That's totally not just randomly out of the blue.

Is this thread being poll-based? I thought this was a thread where we could talk about all history, just like we're able to talk about all food in TFDI. We're able to do that here too, right?

It's not poll based. Like it says in the OP, you can talk about pretty much anything relating to history. I decided to add a poll because I think it adds more fun to the thread (and sometimes provides a topic when discussion lags).

As far as my saying the post about the Kaiser was random was more because he/she/they/it/ze/xe/xi/winnie/idk didn't give a reason. It's kinda like blurting out "I like jelly!" while in the middle of a conversation about, say, cheese sandwiches or something. It'd be helpful to say why you like jelly, and why it's relevant discourse.

[Vikanias]

There was once upon a time where people in a Northern English town during the Napoleonic wars hung a monkey believing it was a French spy.

[The Grand Fifth Imperium]

There was once upon a time where people in a Northern English town during the Napoleonic wars hung a monkey believing it was a French spy.

Sounds like the Hartlepoolfolk went bananas

[Jilia]

I wouldn't say Napolean was a bad person because he helped spread "democratic" (or a form of one) Ideals in Europe

but I agree, he was still a a power-hungry Tyrant

[Technoscience Leftwing]

He was good compared to the Bourbons, but bad compared to the Jacobins. At least that's what they wrote in Soviet textbooks. They took the progressivity of a historical figure as the criterion of goodness. When Napoleon destroyed feudal vestiges and repressed the royalists, he was good - and when he repressed the Jacobins and flirted with Catholicism, he was bad.

Subsequently, I applied this criterion to Stalin: when he repressed monarchists and ultra-rightists, created an industry, he did well - and when he repressed socialists and flirted with the church, chauvinism and conservatism, he acted badly.

Well, I'll write that he was good, by 70%, because he helped Europe get rid of many vestiges of feudalism. But at 30% he was bad, because. retreated from revolutionary to conservatism.

[The Grand Fifth Imperium]

He was good compared to the Bourbons, but bad compared to the Jacobins. At least that's what they wrote in Soviet textbooks. They took the progressivity of a historical figure as the criterion of goodness. When Napoleon destroyed feudal vestiges and repressed the royalists, he was good - and when he repressed the Jacobins and flirted with Catholicism, he was bad.

Subsequently, I applied this criterion to Stalin: when he repressed monarchists and ultra-rightists, created an industry, he did well - and when he repressed socialists and flirted with the church, chauvinism and conservatism, he acted badly.

Well, I'll write that he was good, by 70%, because he helped Europe get rid of many vestiges of feudalism. But at 30% he was bad, because. retreated from revolutionary to conservatism.

I'd say I agree with the part where he was better than the ancien régime, but I would also say he was better than the dare we mention the Jacobins?...

Anyways, on a non poll related note, here's a random history fact or two: Theodore Roosevelt and the Rough Riders never charge up San Juan hill.

They charged up Kettle Hill, which was in the San Juan Heights. I bet I had you going for a moment there?

Also, apparently TR was related one way or another (however distantly) to not one, not two, but rather nine different US presidents.*

Also, srry if I'm somewhat rambling on here, but I'm disappointed somewhat that so few people actually come here to discuss history. Explains a lot about why people say what they do on politics threads (which this is not, unless you're discussing politics of, idk medieval Germany or 18th century England or something), as we cannot truthfully see where we are today (or where we will be tomorrow) without knowing where we were yesterday, like it says in the OP.

*Idk if this is accurate or not, and I'm too lazy to factcheck a tidbit of knowledge that has no significant relevance to pretty much anything.

[Pizza Friday Forever91]

I do not like Kaiser Wilhelm the second.

Ok. That's totally not just randomly out of the blue. Any particular reason?

He was an incompetent monarch whom certain monarchists worship out of contrarianism.