>>525091 Nappy III is definitely underrated. He made the groundwork for France being an industrial powerhouse and his years were actually the time of Franco's greatest prosperity during the entire 19th century.
His reputation is so bad mostly because he was hated by perhaps the greatest generation of French writers, whose works still shape our worldview.
Chamberlain was given a shitty hand by history. People like to look at appeasement as just giving Hitler a blank check but it was more of a move to buy time for the UK to rearm and retool its manufacturing base for war. He knew that war was going to come in Europe and he was willing to sacrifice the Czechs for that necessary time to prepare.
There's a case to be made for "Most Successful" president, in that he came to office with a specific set of goals that he managed to achieve during his term, but hardly qualifies him for "best".
He exacerbated sectarian tensions between the north and south and tension over slavery in the new territories essentially set the stage for the civil war. It's little wonder that his party lost the ensuing election (as well as a huge chunk of congressional seats during the midterms of his presidency due to the unpopular war he unconstitutionally instigated [the HoR literally passed a measure that condemned the Mex-Amer War as being unconstitutionally started by an abuse of Executive power])
I really do dislike this mindless approbation for Polk which so clearly comes from a place of historical ignorance.
They're not so much "underrated" as they are poorly represented in literature.
The problem is that they were both authoritharian, centralized power figures relying on nationalism and traditionalism to sustain power, while France along with most of it's prolific writers, at the time, was extremely liberal.
>>526682 See, this is what I'm talking about. Of all the things he did, the only one even a few people remember is his campaign in Ireland. And even that is clouded by over-exaggerations about atrocities.
>>526693 Just about every modern democracy can be traced back to him (with the exception of the Dutch, the Swiss, some Nordic countries and possibly a few other minor ones). He is a huge link in the chain of events that defined the political landscape of the modern world.
>>526743 >Just about every modern democracy can be traced back to him (with the exception of the Dutch, the Swiss, some Nordic countries and possibly a few other minor ones). He is a huge link in the chain of events that defined the political landscape of the modern world
Sure, but isn't he more of a stepping stone who only deserves an honorary mention when compared to the leaders of the American and French revolutions and the proto-democracies that existed in Italy and the Holy Roman Empire?
>>526760 >>526765 no. I mean, yes, in a sense he is just a stepping stone, but he's a very important stepping stone. The American and French revolutions were a lot more derivative than either the French or the Americans like to think (and needless to say the place they were deriving their ideas from was England). I could go into it in greater length but it would take an awful lot of time.
Also, in terms of individual responsibility Cromwell as a man was far more responsible for the outcome of the English Civil war and the political aftermath than any of the important figures in the American or French revolutions.
As for the proto-democracies that existed in Italy and the Holy Roman Empire? They don't really have much direct connection to modern democracies - with the exception of the Dutch city states, which have a supporting role in England's story and thus are connected to everything that came afterwards.
>>526834 War from Russia? Like in the 20s? The British policy failed big time and the fact they didn't have a crystal ball to see the future is not an excuse. Other countries proposed some kind of action back when it was still possible (circa 1936) but they refused. This and the remilitarization of Rhineland were unforgivable mistakes. Chamberlain was just one representant of the policy so it's not just to criticise only him. The whole British policy of the 20th century is one big failure starting with Lloyd George.
>>526419 Napps last ten years were fairly liberal,and he wasn't even one of the most fanatical nationalists, that honour goes to the orleanists. nappy III actually tried to give his reign a sovereign dimension by claiming that he represented 'the will of the people', but instead of a parliament they used an emperor to direct the will of the french people into policy. But besides that, plebiscites were quite popular during the time as well.
>>526820 >The American and French revolutions were a lot more derivative than either the French or the Americans like to think
Wowowowow hold on bro, I'm neither french nor american, and I agree that both revolutions have some precessors that had their importance as well, but both of those revolutions are still absolutely crucial in western history. Modern nationalism for example was born with the french revolution; the developments of modern political theories had crucial influence from the french revolution, and the first enlightenment constitution comes out of the US as well
>>527672 >the first enlightenment constitution Untrue. That would be the 1688 English Bill Of Rights. Well, I suppose proto-enlightenment. Either way, the American founding fathers cited it among their reasons for revolution.
>Modern nationalism for example was born with the french revolution Nationalism had been a feature of European politics since the end of the 30 years war. The Napoleonic Wars had the effect of wiping away a lot of the feudal remnants from the rest of Europe, but western Europe had already been heading in that direction for a long time.
Also, I'm not saying that the American and French revolutions weren't important for world history. I'm just saying that the ideas they were founded on weren't as original as is sometimes portrayed in historical discussion. A lot of the American Bill of Rights was lifted directly from the 1688 English version. In fact, at first they declared that they were rebelling to secure the rights due to them as Englishmen. And the French revolutionaries were heavily influenced by enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire, who explicitly stated that he regarded the English model of constitutional monarchy as his inspiration for his critiques of the French government.
Cromwell, meanwhile, was forging entirely new ground. Well, sort of. He had the Magna Carta to fall back on as a justification, but it's application as a limit to the monarch's power had always been somewhat loose in practice. The rest of Europe was heading further into absolutism, and England was following, then the English Civil war shifted things onto a radically different course. Naturally it wasn't just Cromwell, but I singled him out as being both instrumental in the practical matter of securing Parliament's victory, and defining how the aftermath would play out.
>>525543 oh come on. If you don't want to fault him on appeasement, he certainly deserves censure for declaring war on Germany and then not actually attacking.
If you're going to have a war, actually fight. Don't just make the declaration because you've backed yourself into a corner political and then chicken out and sit doing nothing for 6 months while the enemy regroups their forces.
>>528296 > proto-enlightenment. And that’s exactly the crucial difference. Yes, the Bill Of Rights was an important predecessor of enlightenment constitutions like the french, american and polish one, but it wasn’t a product of enlightenment. The idea of sovereignity based on the will of the people, and not on the divine right of the king was the crucial difference, and while the Bill Of Rights certainly was distinctive in the way that it established the position of the parliament as a check on the monarch, the bill was still more of a constitutional reform than a social reform ( see for instance the principle of equality of the people; whereas the french and american constitutions established this concepts, the UK gave an equal position to catholics as late as 1829.
>Nationalism had been a feature of European politics since the end of the 30 years war.
This is really wrong, I’m sorry. Before the enlightenment, there were certain ideas on the importance of honouring the state. However, this phenomenon should bes een as a property of the bigger concept of ‘civil virtue’, which was the predominant way of thinking abut one’s nation since the roman era. Civil virtue was the idea that a good patriot should honour the fatherland, but this had nothing to do with the ‘uniqueness’ of the nation and links between the nation and its people. Modern nationalism originates from the thinking of the enlightenment thinkers Herder and Rousseau. While Rousseau supports the concept of ‘subjective nationalism’, in which he emphasises the national institutions as the key of nationhood, and openness of the nation to everyone who’s willing to accept the nation and it’s customs as his/her, Herder creates the objective nationalism in which he links language and race with the ground on which these people stand. Modern nationalism then grew out of these thinkers and got a kickstart when the revolution started
>>529435 >but it wasn’t a product of enlightenment no, just the inspiration for.
>The idea of sovereignity based on the will of the people, and not on the divine right of the king was the crucial difference for practical purposes the issue of popular sovereignty vs. divine right was decided in England during the civil war. The very fact that the 1688 Bill of Rights was a constitution implied that parliament, and hence the people, held primacy over the monarch. The practical issue had already been decided, there was no real need to define it in the abstract.
>( see for instance the principle of equality of the people; whereas the french and american constitutions established this concepts, the UK gave an equal position to catholics as late as 1829. and the Americans didn't abolish slavery until the 1860s, or give blacks equal political rights until the 1960s.
>Modern nationalism originates from the thinking of the enlightenment thinkers Herder and Rousseau Ah, I get it - you studied philosophy
Contrary to what philosophers like to believe, civilisations don't wait around for intellectuals to tell them what direction to go in. The motive forces of history work on broader scales; philosophers usually only end up describing the changes they see taking place around them. Nationalism grew naturally as the polities of Europe solidified from loose feudal agglomerations into definable, centralised states in the 17th century. Common patriotic feeling really started taking hold as economic patterns started to shift away from feudalism in the 18th century and economies grew from being integrated on the local scale - e.g. a town and the surrounding countryside which fed its marketplace - to a united national economy. The only role philosophy had to play was to justify what was already becoming a political and economic reality - or in the case of less developed areas what would inevitably become an economic reality somewhere down the line.
>>525543 appeasement was right. WWII destroyed great britian forever. They 'won' the war on paper but in reality they lost the empire and thousands of lifes and millions in infrastructure and in the end Poland was communist anyway.
Once we get a few more generations from the holocaust survivors this will become the new narrative. Chamberlain's only mistake was giving in to pressure and starting WWII.
>>530934 Not only did we not save Poland, we didn't even save the Jews. Had Britain and France found a way to stay out of the war then the a great many more Jews could have fled West and taken up residence in the Americas or some corner of the Empire. As it was every person coming from the East could have been a German spy in disguise and we had to be pretty careful about who we let over and who we let use our ships.
Let's say that Britain doesn't discourage the Poles from signing the pact with Ribbentrop. We tell the Germans that we are not going to waste our time policing Eastern Europe and whatever he wants to do to the commies is none of our business, wishing him all the best. Even if that only buys Britain and France a little more time it would permit them to continue the rearmament process and possibly have something more substantial ready for the Germans if they did cross over into France.
Chamberlain made a shitload of mistakes but none of them are to do with being a pansy
>Pretends Eastern Europe is in Britain's sphere of influence >Discourages the Poles from allying themselves with the Germans against the Russians >Declares war on a country he cannot meaningfully attack, dragging his ally into a war they can't win yet
>>525543 A lot of people give Chamberlain shit for appeasement,
These people, however, have 20/20 vision. It's easy to criticise someone when you know what happened after the event. To Chamberlain, Adolf Hitler only wanted the German territory taken from it after the First World War, and giving it to them seemed like the best option at the time.
The guy was just trying to avoid another war like the First World War, like any sane person would want.
>>531060 > Even if that only buys Britain and France a little more time
Hitler never had plans to attack Western Europe. Hitler's policy of Lebensraum was a goal that specifically stated that Germany must expand eastward. Hitler only ever wanted to destroy Eastern Europe, because he saw them as inferior beings.
The West were actually Hitler's 'allies', or so he thought. He saw them as being of similar blood to the Germans, and he respected their military strength (evident from their respective empires) and also rich history.
When Britain and France declared war on Germany in 1939, Hitler actually asked for peace with them, but this was refused.
They actually forced his hand on that more than he did them.
>>531927 Not even OP but I can tell you that Hitler's desire to only expand eastwards is spelled out in Mein Kampf, he made no mention of the west. Also it's a matter of record in his personal writings that he held the British in high regard since they're 'Germanic', so it's likely he would have tried to ally with them instead of exterminate them.
>>531972 He didn't think we'd actually go to war over Poland because it was a stupid thing to do. Big powers fuck over small countries over time, for fucks sake Britain did the exact same thing to Denmark in the mid 19th century under Palmerston.
>>525625 I think his reputation is bad because he let himself be played like a goddamn fiddle by Bismarck. It may be unfair, but if the end of your reign comes crashing down in the most humiliating fashion imaginable, people are going to remember that rather than any of the good (but not astonishing, mind blowing) things you did in the decades before.
>>532538 The progressive era is the most overrated imo. It sounded nice and all but it made the government bigger and all details surrounding the reforms don't seem too good the more I read about it. Probably another textbook myth like the one about FDR.
>>531978 Same with the Germans during WW1. The poor Krauts really didn't think the Anglos would be so autistic as to go to war with a huge power with which they enjoyed good relations just because the borders of a tiny country got violated a little bit. It would be like the USA declaring war on Russia because a Russian war plane crossed through Turkish airspace for a few seconds. It's fucking insane.
>>536398 He did greatly enlarge the empire when he became king. Even with the lands lost with the romans later the empire was better of than before. he could have beaten the Romans even with his bad decisions. At Magnesia it was Eumenes of Pergamon that won the battle for the roman side, not the Romans. Too bad he died in such a dumb way.
>>531693 kek, that boar got a play written by probably the most known writter ever and started a well known conflict thatsaw the rise of one of the most known noble houses of england. how is that underrated?
The greatest leader Russia ever had and pretty much the sole reason they're not a backwater microstate
He doesn't get much recognition because there are so many other Russian leaders that are overrated (Catherine because she was a woman, Commies since they were the big bads of the united states, Ivan IV since he has a cooler suffix)
Fuck even Nicholas II and Anastasia are more well known than him which is a tragedy considering how based his life was and all the shit he did
>>525798 He was incompetent. After 1848-49 Hungarian revolution, he should had made the Monarchy into a real confederation, instead of making it into a "kinda-federation" for 15 years, with locking the Hungarians out, then giving in for the Hungarians and making a Dual-Monarchy, but now locking every other ethnicity out of power, besides germans and hungarians.
I say this as a hungarian, after 1867 it was just matter of time when will the Monarchy falls apart, and it did 50 years later. And its a shame, because as history proved, these tiny countries have no power on their own, and were gladly sacrificed to the nazis/communist.
>>540961 He was all right. It's debatable whether or not his fleet was really useful or if his wars, even if victorious, were fruitful. Plus his reforms could get a little too weird. Some Russians can't forgive him for being ashamed of his culture and wanting everything to be western. Even giving his soldiers stockings.
>London is a leading global city, with strengths in the arts, commerce, education, entertainment, fashion, finance, healthcare, media, professional services, research and development, tourism, and transport all contributing to its prominence. It is one of the world's leading financial centres and has the fifth-or sixth-largest metropolitan area GDP in the world depending on measurement. London is a world cultural capital. It is the world's most-visited city as measured by international arrivals and has the world's largest city airport system measured by passenger traffic. London is the world's leading investment destination, hosting more international retailers and ultra high-net-worth individuals than any other city. London's 43 universities form the largest concentration of higher education institutes in Europe, and a 2014 report placed it first in the world university rankings. According to the report London also ranks first in the world in software, multimedia development and design, and shares first position in technology readiness. In 2012, London became the first city to host the modern Summer Olympic Games three times.
>>525798 >Destroyed the Habsburg Empire >Forced apsolute monarchy insted of a federation >Repressed every ethnicity and managed to turn them against himself >Kept every part of the empire besides Austria and Hungary undeveloped >Lost most of the wars he fought as a result
>>542977 I don't think Deng is underrated at all, thankfully. Anyone who knows anything about Chinese history will be aware that Deng revived China's economy thanks to being the most pragmatic motherfucker you could hope for, whereas Mao was just your run-off-the-mill communist crackpot dictator. He may have been an efficient wartime leader who managed to restore national unity, but as a peacetime leader he was an utter disaster.
His grandfather, father and his son had a nice dynasty going.
Laying the foundation for Hapsburg marriage policy, helping the Northern Renaissance, military innovation (especially artillery), broke the monopoly of the Hanseatic league, setting the standard of European court etiquette for the following centuries, unifying the low countries.
Those guys pretty much set the stage for nearly three centuries of economic growth and prosperity in the low countries.
>>526805 >Be Catholic Ruler >Loose to Ottomans >Convert to Islam >Be in Battle with Turks but see that Turks are loosing >Desert and become Christians again Can someone tell me why Albanians worship this guy so much even though he's pretty much a coward.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.