Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

The 20th And 21st Century Magnus


Tobias

Recommended Posts

G'day everyone

The century just gone and the century just opened have both been scored by war and natural or man-made disasters-the last century some of the worst warfare ever. Have there been any generals, presidents, prime ministers or even lower that deserve the title of Magnus for their deeds? What about humanitarians or doctors or scientists? I value everyone's opinion in the subject, as always :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have there been any generals, presidents, prime ministers or even lower that deserve the title of Magnus for their deeds? What about humanitarians or doctors or scientists?

 

The first that come to mind are Churchill, Zhukov and possibly Ghandi for his influence.

 

Other choices: Einstein for science, Freud for influence, maybe Bill Gates and Henry Ford as well.

 

Yuri Gagarin and/or Neil Armstrong would be interesting choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a strictly military perspective I think WWII was the only event large enough for any general to earn the title 'Magnus'.

 

Western allied power was spread among several notable and usual suspects, and as such, its certainly hard to pick one (Montgomery, Patton, MacArthur, etc.). For the Germans there was Rommel and Von Manstein but each had their problems. In the end I think the one who would get the top rank among all, but still undeserving of such a title, would be Zhukov.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Einstien should have Magnus added to his name.

 

Many people will think wrongly of me for this, but Adolf Hitler.

 

Despite his inhumanitary treatment. He managed to do something that many of us who insult him and ridicule him daily lack the ability, determination, or ideas to do. Think about what he achieved, many bad things, but look at it deeper. He managed to rally an entire nation to his cause counquered more land in less than a year then the Romans could do in centuries and managed to hold almost the whole of western europe in his power, something that even the Romans never truely achomplished, in fact, no one had ever achomplished before. Look at it that way and you might see some light.

 

NOTE: I am not a facist or a Nazi, I'm just trying to say that we should look beyond prejudices against people for their beliefs and see how much effort and skill and time it takes for some one to do something of the magnituted they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a chap recently who found a vaccine for Cervical Cancer, i think he deserves a Magnus title

What about Winston Churchill? I think he could be deserving of the title for the way he inspired Britons to not give an inch to the germans in WWII and his immense capacity for work despite his age.

As well, i've been quite an admirer of Franklin Roosevelt since i watched Pearl Harbour:)

Seriously, he really brought AMerica out of the Great Depression i think, and as well as his inspirational recovery from that disease that i can never recall what the name is, he agreed with our PM of the time, John Curtin, to protect Australia from the japanese when most of our soldiers were in North Africa or P.O.W's after the bungling at Singapore. But then i'm not well versed in American history, so i'll leave the judging of Franklin to others who are.

By the way, my grandfather fought the Germans at El Alamein, and later on after Normandy. He survived and made it home, but what he saw and told me persuades me that Hitler deserves no title of greatness whatsoever, and that is not prejudice, that is an opinion contrived from a primary source of the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Einstien should have Magnus added to his name.

 

Many people will think wrongly of me for this, but Adolf Hitler.

 

I would reserve Magnus for positive achievements of greatness. No question of his (ignoble) accomplishments, perhaps Adolf the Terrible might be a better name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Magnus means simply great, not good or nice or any of those. Words do have different means to different people though.

 

In my mind anyone who can gather so many people to a insane cuase has to haave much skill and ability. I'm not saying that he did any thing "good" but I'm saying he did things that I doubt any of us have the ability to do; rehabilitated a destroyed nation into a powerhouse, rally the constantly warring departments of the military and government to his camp, and control almost all of western euorpe for a time.

 

I'm not trying to say that he achived "good" things but I'm trying to say that just becuase he didn't do "good" things doesn't mean he can't be great. Think past the horrors and think about whether you could've done what he did, not whether or not you would've done it. You might see where I'm coming from, if not. Then I respect your position.

 

I'll stop I guess before we get into a agruement here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hitler wasn't the first by any means, nor necessarily the greatest. Frederick Barbarossa forged the Holy Roman Empire from the large amount of squabbling fiefs in Germany. Napoleon held together his empire for a fair while longer then Hitler. In know you'll say this is outside the time frame specified, but what i'm saying is that Hitler did not do something never done before in reuniting and rehabilitating a broken power in a superpower.

I don't want to start an argument either so i'll stop too :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...