Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

national heroes treated TOO justly!
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979 		  Quote azimuth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: national heroes treated TOO justly!
    Posted: 11-Jan-2005 at 04:00

his tomb in france?

i thought he was burried in that island

 
Back to Top
Cornellia View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 474 		  Quote Cornellia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2005 at 07:19

Oh no, he's buried in Paris and his tomb is magnificent.  You enter through a huge door made from the cannons seized at Austerlitz.  For the millenium, they cleaned the building and regilded the dome.    There are others interred in the building but Napoleon's tomb takes center stage  - literally.

 

http://www.napoleon.org/en/magazine/museums/files/Invalides_ and_Military_Museum.asp
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2005 at 10:14
Originally posted by Temujin

actually it was only 1 million people that died during the Napoleonic wars, and of course they were not murdered by Napoleon. you can maybe blame royalist europe, but not France. the only one he murdered was the Duc d'Enghien.

Most people who died in WW2 weren't killed by Hitler either, but still he's to blame for their death. The same is true for Napoleon

btw, I don't say that Napoleon is as bad as Hitler, because he wasn't. Napoleon spread many good things in the countries he conquered. Still it should not be forgotten that he also caused lots of deaths.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2005 at 12:33

About Ataturk,

he was a smart and powerful leader and he really knew what to do in necessary conditions. And sometimes- you have to be kind of a dictator to control huge power and population. But smartly... He did it really well, but you cant call him a "dictator" because he was a man who gave the nation its independence and own authority. I accept that the "stiklal" courts of "justice" were somekind of dictatorship, but he had to implement these for the sake of his purpose.

But about the view of Ataturk in the nation, I'd say he has a real respectful impression btw the citizens of Turkey and all over the world except the most Islamic groups. In fact he was a really magnificient commander and did everything to reach his purpose. Some of them were impressive, but some of them "seemed like for other missions", but I dont think to discuss this issue in a multinational forum is a right thing, because whatever he does-right or wrong- he occupies a big part in modern Turkish history, and - in my opinion- it wouldn't be up to people who belong to other nations to make comments about our national honor...

 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2005 at 12:51

Also other leaders who really dont deserve their current respectful positions are:

Ismet Inn

Gorbaov

Saddam Hseyin

NOTE: One example for the opposite- a great leader who couldn't find his well deserved place for nations respect:

Karamanoglu Mehmet Beg ( The ruler of the Karamanoglu Beylii during the  beginning period of Ottoman appearence in 1300-1400 ) He was the first leader to  take the large amount of Arabic and Persian words from Oguz Turkish. Altough at that times there weren't lots of these words and these words were being used by the ruler class, the citizens even didn't know the arabic script and persian language. But the ruler class was using lots of persian words in literature and arabic words in science. So he wanted to give an end to this language difference btw the rulrs and nation, so he put rules about speaking and using only Turkish in all possible places btw all levels of people.

And since the 1500s, the Ottoman rulers used a language that has a small amount of foreign words in it and mostly same with the Anatolian tongue, but after the conquest of Istanbul and the changing cultural structure, the languages of the nations in the empire become mixing and there appeared the "Ottoman language"...
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221 		  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2005 at 14:18
about Napoleon: no, it's a common misconception. after the revolution all the monarchies of europe declared war on France and only due to war they were able to free themselves. after napoleon took over only Britain remained at war with France, and with the exception of 2 years Britain always remained at war with France until 1814/15. all campaigns Napoleon let were directed against Britain because after Trafalgar he wasn't able to defeat the British directly anymore.
Back to Top
Tobodai View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310 		  Quote Tobodai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2005 at 17:02
Originally posted by Oguzoglu

About Ataturk,

he was a smart and powerful leader and he really knew what to do in necessary conditions. And sometimes- you have to be kind of a dictator to control huge power and population. But smartly... He did it really well, but you cant call him a "dictator" because he was a man who gave the nation its independence and own authority. I accept that the "stiklal" courts of "justice" were somekind of dictatorship, but he had to implement these for the sake of his purpose.

But about the view of Ataturk in the nation, I'd say he has a real respectful impression btw the citizens of Turkey and all over the world except the most Islamic groups. In fact he was a really magnificient commander and did everything to reach his purpose. Some of them were impressive, but some of them "seemed like for other missions", but I dont think to discuss this issue in a multinational forum is a right thing, because whatever he does-right or wrong- he occupies a big part in modern Turkish history, and - in my opinion- it wouldn't be up to people who belong to other nations to make comments about our national honor...

 

 

Everyone here talks about their opinions on what a range of countries do, are you saying people arent allowed to do that about Turkey?  This is just more proof for my argument that Ataturk is overated, he is viewed by Turks as beyond reproach by anyone including foreigners, like its heresy or soemthing.

Dont misunderstand, I thihk hes the best dictator anyone ever had in the whole 20th century, I even have his biography, and I agree with what he did for the most part, I just think the near fanatical esteem he is held in constitutes being overrated, that doesnt mean I dont htink hes great or important, just that it seems for all the work Ataturk did gettin grleigion out of state, he was just replaced as the religious figure to fill the vacuum, and thats silly.  Probably not his fault, but certainly the fault of his society.
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.