Previous  1 ... 5  6  7  8  9  10  11 ... 14  Next

Maybe I'm a little late... I'd have to disagree with Yasser Arafat. He wasn't over rated, he did a lot for the Palestinians, and he was a terrorist, but he surely wasn't overrated, not like some are.

I would have to say King Tut, from Egypt. He is so fuckin' overrated.

   

Not necessarily a bad choice – why, though?

   

I think he's overrated because of his accomplishments, or lack thereof, during his lifetime. He was a very mediocre leader, with few grand accomplishments compared to some. The only reason he is as famous as he is now is because his tomb in the Valley of Kings was not looted, and when it was discovered it had all those lavish objects. Jewelery, furniture, weaponry, etc. All of it was luck that he was not looted, and that his corpse was not burned as firewood when he was found. As that did happen frequently in the past. Also, another reason he is famous is because he was murdered. Come on! He was murdered because he was incompetent. lmao, well, that's just my thoughts.

   

IMAO... JFK and Yasser where both overated

   

The problem with Tutankhamun was that his reign was quite short. He didn’t do much and many Egyptologists theorize that advisors likely influenced major political initiatives (although is should be noted that major historical reversals of monotheistic Atenism did occur during the pharaoh’s reign – hardly insignificant). In fact, it’s not a historical stretch to claim that Tut maybe wasn’t even a leader at all (again, history lacks specifics about his reign) and perhaps he was merely a figurehead. It might be a better description to label him one of the most overrated possible leaders in history.

Also, there is no tangible evidence that suggests the pharaoh was murdered due to incompetence nor does a consensus exist that concludes that he was even murdered (Hawass).

   

I think tutankhamun was overrated as well.. but also so was Caligula and Nero in Roman times. King Henry the 8th in England King Louie 14th in France. The Kaiser in Germany and the Tsars in Russia.. I think that all monarchs over the years have been over rated with the exception of 4 -- Augustus Ceaser, Julius Ceaser, King Richard and if he existed King Arthur.
Militarily most were inept.. they were all very good at fleecing all thier subjects due to thier birth right but terrible to thier people and on the battlefield..
Gangis Khan and Attila the hun both great warrior leaders as was Alexander the great. The Japanese Leaders.. the Shogun and chinese leaders... they seemed to have done a lot more for both thier peoples and society's.. (okay yes they were feudal leaders bent on domination but militarily they seemed to understand the tactics and logistics of battle.

   

I’ll play – Nero, Henry VIII, Louis XIV are overrated? Nope. I’d be interested to if you can demonstrate that with some history rather than conjecture. It’ll be interesting to say the least, as evidently you are more impressed by a quasi-mythical leaders (King Arthur?!?) than the real thing.

   

Did that on purpose Mustang1.. just wanted to see if you were on line.. I knew you couldn't resist....
King arthur more than likely was a mythical king.. but there are so many stories through english folklore about the king who cared for his people.Until Camelot has been ruled to be imaginary and the warrior king Arthur forever demised as only a story book legend.. his quest will forever be placed as a story for the ages.....

Except establishing the church of England to remove his people from the religous rule of the Roman Catholic church, the beheading of several wives and ruling England with a iron fist all the meanwhile getting larger and larger until his death what exactly did Henry the VIII do for england. Can you Elaborate..LOL
Choices made by King louis the 14th directly led to the squalor and resentment of the french people who finally revolted removing and killing his bloodline, thus ending the reign of French monarchs.. (have to delve deep into the old history texts for some direct cuasations.
I think we should discuss this.....
Nero I felt was overrated in his day for not only his disdain for all other people except the Roman elite but he also had Armies loyal to him turn on him.. not the sign of a great leader. He also spread his forces too thin allowing for the sacking and fall of Rome..... I'll get you a list of the pros and cons of Neros leadership....

   

I think the greatest accomplishment King Tut was the fact of the discovery of his tomb by Howard Carter and Lord Carnavon and the archaeology that stems from that. Many objects found in his tomb sparks much controversy, as stated above, during his reign. Hmmm most overrated leader? Mustang, how can you say Nero as a leader as well? Sure the first five years of his reign can be described as "affective" however the matters of the Empire were handled effectively and the Senate enjoyed a period of renewed influence in state affairs. Besides that he was a lunatic and much controversy with the burning of Rome which many attribute to him archaeologically speaking. It should be noted that the primary sources on Nero may not be reliable. These works were mainly written by Suetonius and Tacitus, both of whom were of senatorial rank

   

Umm what battle was this??? I don't think Rome was sacked during the Julio-Claudian dynasty.

   

That’s a rather cursory examination to say the least. Can I elaborate? Of course, but you claimed that he was overrated so I believe the onus is on you to establish that his acts (or lack thereof) were inconsequential to history.



I’ll let you delve deep into those old history texts first, because they may point you in a different direction regarding Louis’s alleged label as an “overrated leader”.



Are we to look at tangible “successes” as the sole criteria for establishing who is overrated? If that’s the case then Nero may not fit that bill, as you’d have to demonstrate he was a total failure (and held in hight esteem as a ruler) and that said failure was demonstrably worse than any other leader in history. That should prove rather daunting, but good luck. If we examine the leader’s personal characteristics than Nero was the quintessential tyrant whose persecution of the Christians, matricide and fantastic cruelty was one that may put him in a historical class with few others. But how does that directly relate to the thread’s topic? That was my point – we must be careful to define what aspects of "overrated" we are focusing on when evaluating historical leadership and I don’t believe it’s enough to solely assess the leader by one expectation (and keep in mind, you are using contemporary standards as a guide on leaders that ruled before the Enlightenment)

   

Actually, I pulled his name forward as an example of Twister’s list of overrated leaders.
He was merely an inclusion, but I don’t think he truly represents history’s most overrated leader.

Firstly, who legitimately considers him a competent ruler? You need to possess some prestige and respect (from someone) if you are to become overrated, or why debate its label application? I’m not sure you’ll find too many primary or secondary sources that sing the praises of Nero’s Imperial leadership (although Boren did comment on his record as a competent administrator). He (and let’s evaluate this historically as scholars have claimed that his legendary acts of cruelty, although real, do contain some embellishment) was the archetype of tyrannical cruelty, megalomania and a poor ruler that cared little for his people (hardly unique in the annals human civilization). I don’t deny that objective fact, but he’s not overrated, he never had a superior standing to begin with, and as such he’s not a good example. That is the reason for my inclusion of him (I’m still interested in seeing how Henry VIII and Louis XIV deserve a similar brand) in my previous post.

   

True, what is the definition as an overrated leader? His infamy as a ruler can not be ruled out in this case and I have already stated that sources on his reign are sketchy at best because of the senate. I would still like to know what he meant by this

In addition, what is your take on the burning of Rome, did he do it? Did he hire others to do it? Or was it a conspiracy against him? I do believe there was an article on this on some archaeology site in which somebody found the remains of a building dated to Neros time with scorch marks.

   

The information that I’ve seen is indeed sketchy as to who (if anyone) was to blame for the great fire of 64 CE. Firstly, fires are not uncommon phenomena during Imperial Rome – just because one destroys half of Rome, doesn’t render it immune to innocuous beginnings (there isn’t much archaeological information that specifically points to Nero as the arsonist). Many historians (see Boren) claim that Nero saw this disaster as an opportunity to improve the appearance of the city (some say he envisioned a Neropolis) and to build a grandiose palace structure on the Oppian Hill. This announcement (coupled with contemporary views that the fire was deliberately set) seemed too soon after the destruction for many contemporaries and this aroused popular opinion that Nero set the fires to pave the way for his New Rome.

Nero established an investigation into the event and someone (or some people or Nero himself) decided to make Christians the scapegoats. The rest is obscured by popular myth and conjecture.

   

On NERO...a little history of the man his reign was short and terrible.

Nero's Early Life and Reign
The death of Claudius in 54 A.D., generally thought to have been planned and carried out by his wife Agrippina Minor, secured for her son Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus the place as emperor which she had so carefully arranged. Before his death, Claudius, though he already had a son Britannicus, had adopted Lucius, who changed his name to Nero Claudius Caesar, (a great-great-grandson of Augustus) at Agrippina's instigation; instrumental too in the transfer of power was the influence of Seneca, Nero's tutor, and of Sextus Afranius Burrus, the praetorian prefect. Since Nero was only an adolescent, the early part of his reign was characterized by direction from these older figures, including Agrippina herself. Some scholars see a struggle between Agrippina against Seneca and Burrus for control of the young emperor, and when Agrippina began to show favor to Britannicus, a legitimate (though slightly younger) heir and possible rival, Britannicus' murder was arranged (55 A.D.) and Agrippina's authority displaced.

Nero's Dissolute Nature
The traditional portrait of Nero's dissolute life derives at least in part from the years which fallowed soon after his accession; the attraction of Poppaea Sabina who was married first to Rufrius Crispinus end then to Otho (himself a close friend of Nero), may have had same connection with the divorce, exile, and murder of Nero's first wife, Octavia, Claudius' daughter. Poppaea became Nero's mistress in 58 A.D., and the next year Agrippina herself was murdered, with Nero's knowledge. Burrus and Seneca continued in their guidance until 62 A.D. when the former died and the latter entered retirement. In their place that year appeared a counselor, Gaius Ofonius Tigellinus, who had been exiled in 39 A.D. by Caius (Caligula) for adultery with Agrippina, but who returned to find favor with Nero and a post for himself as praetorian prefect, from which position he exerted a further degenerating influence on Nero.

Nero's Marriage and the Burning of Rome
Poppaea and Nero married in 62 A.D., and she bore a daughter to him the next year, but the child died only a few months later. The events of 62 and the next few years did little to improve public perception of Nero. In 62, at Tigellinus' instigation, a series of treason laws were put to deadly use against anyone considered a threat. In 64 A.D. a great fire left much of the city in ruins, and while it is not certain that Nero himself had the fires set, it is true that his ambitious building campaign, which followed the fires (and in particular the construction of the Domus Aurea), represented to many a private selfishness at a time when public reconstruction was most needed. In 65 A.D. Nero's artistic inclinations, present since his accession, became truly public, and in a display which shocked conservative tastes he appeared on stage and sang for audiences.

Nero's Fall From Power
His enemies had become numerous, and that same year a plot to assassinate Nero and to replace him with Gaius Calpurnius Piso was both formulated and betrayed; among those forced to commit suicide in connection with the Pisonian conspiracy were Seneca, Lucan, Petronius, and Tigellinus' colleague in the prefecture (his replacement, Nymphidius, was to be influential in the accession of Galba three years later). Poppaea died in 66 A.D., and the next year Nero left Rome altogether for a tour of Greece, during which his extravagances alienated him further still from general citizens and military commanders alike. More crucially, in his paranoia after the conspiracy he ordered a popular and successful general, Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo, to commit suicide, a decision which left other provincial leaders in doubt about his next move and inclined toward rebellion rather than inaction.

The Year of the Four Emperors
In 68 A.D. Vindex revolted in Lugdunensis, as did Clodius Macer in Africa. Galba declared his allegiance to the Senate and the Roman people, rather than to Nero. Such unrest in the provinces, coupled with intrigue at Rome among the praetorians (orchestrated at least in part by Nymphidius), provided Nero's enemies, especially within the Senate, with their chance to depose him. He committed suicide on 9 June 68 A.D.

A Historical Assessment of Nero as Emperor
Nero, last of the Julio-Claudians, had been placed in the difficult position of absolute authority at a young age coupled with the often-contradictory efforts of those in a position to manipulate him. Augustus, however, had not been much older when he began his bid for power, and so a great deal of the responsibility for Nero's conduct must also rest with the man himself. Nero's reign was not without military operations (e.g., the campaigns of Corbulo against the Parthians, the suppression of the revolt of Boudicca in Britain), but his neglect of the armies was a critical error. He left Rome not to review his troops but to compete in Greek games, and as a further slight had left a freedman, Helius, in his place at Rome to govern in his absence. The suspicion which surrounded him after the treason trials and the conspiracy set the stage for a series of civil upheavals, "the Year of the Four Emperors," which included the rise to power of men, such as Otho in Lusitania and Vespasian in Judaea, whom Nero himself had sent to the frontiers, unaware that they were to become his successors.

I never said at any point that Nero was a great leader, but he is always mentioned as one of the leaders of the Roman empire.. primarily due to his calious disregard to the Roman empire. In taking over an Empire that Cladius left after his untimely death.. Nero rose to power. At the time Nero was overrated and helped by his mother to ascend to the throne over Britannicus.

   

Previous  1 ... 5  6  7  8  9  10  11 ... 14  Next