Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mmadsen" data-source="post: 277343" data-attributes="member: 1645">By those criteria, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Mussolini were equally Great.&nbsp; (OK, Hitler and Mussolini blew it.)&nbsp; I'm willing to say they were &quot;bad&quot;.I don't think any other Roman general would be considered &quot;good&quot; either (by modern criteria).&nbsp; What complicates the issue, of course, is that historical leaders aren't living in modern times.&nbsp; An idealized leader would unify tribes without war, would bring justice, would increase trade and culture, etc.&nbsp; In a violent world though, a great general brings about justice, trade, and culture the hard way.&nbsp; He kills and enslaves millions, until there's a Pax Romana.I still have to wonder what a less agressive Rome might've done.&nbsp; Could Roman ways spread without Roman legions leading the way?&nbsp; Probably not, because the peace necessary for roads and travel (and thus cultural and economic exchange) only came about once everything was under Roman rule.Agreed.&nbsp; Someone is always going to come along and take what's yours.&nbsp; Fighting isn't a unilateral decision.&nbsp; You may not have to start wars and spread your empire, but that doesn't mean everyone else is going to play nice.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mmadsen, post: 277343, member: 1645"] By those criteria, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Mussolini were equally Great. (OK, Hitler and Mussolini blew it.) I'm willing to say they were "bad". I don't think any other Roman general would be considered "good" either (by modern criteria). What complicates the issue, of course, is that historical leaders aren't living in modern times. An idealized leader would unify tribes without war, would bring justice, would increase trade and culture, etc. In a violent world though, a great general brings about justice, trade, and culture the hard way. He kills and enslaves millions, until there's a [i]Pax Romana[/i]. I still have to wonder what a less agressive Rome might've done. Could Roman ways spread without Roman legions leading the way? Probably not, because the peace necessary for roads and travel (and thus cultural and economic exchange) only came about once everything was under Roman rule. Agreed. [i]Someone[/i] is always going to come along and take what's yours. Fighting isn't a unilateral decision. You may not have to start wars and spread your empire, but that doesn't mean everyone else is going to play nice. [/QUOTE]

Verification