Name 1 historical person you admire

  • Thread starter Deleted member 40035
  • Start date


Jabberwocky said:
Surely part of being a field Marshall is adjusting your plan for the weather?

He also fucked up with developing the Continental system which meant he alienated most of Europe and kept him constantly at war, chucked a half million man army away invading Russia, misjudged the Spanish people and imposed his brother as king and bogged down hundreds of thousands of troops in a Guerrilla war.

Wellington managed to put together a coalition army (including the Spanish who hated England), kept them fed and disciplined, created one of the greatest military engineering feats in building the lines at Torres Vedras and never lost a major engagement even when significantly outnumbered by the French.....
Click to expand...
History is factual, but always slanted to whoever actually writes it. If Blucher hadn't turned up when he did, the chances were more likely that Waterloo would have been Wellington's Little Big Horn.
 
dangermows said:
Read it. Doesn't take away the fact he was a terrorist, and oversaw attacks which saw in innocents killed.
Click to expand...

The Killing$ of Tony Blair - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

"It is a meticulous documentation of Blair’s odious, immoral and almost unbelievable money-grubbing-from-despots venality", wrote Rod Liddle in an almost entirely positive review in The Spectator. "Galloway is a terrific presenter, dapper in his left-wing hat, all boilerplate rhetoric, biblical quotations and growled sardonic asides".[16] Wendy Ide wrote for The Observer: "While there is no doubt that Blair should be called to account, Galloway’s lack of credibility and air of insufferable sanctimony have the unexpected result of making you want to side with Blair".[17] Yohann Koshy for Vice magazine commented: "There's a tension between [Blair] as a malicious individual, obsessed with money and power, and a cipher for all that's calamitous with life in the early 21st century – Galloway ends the film by saying, after all that, that Blair is 'just a symptom'. But if Blair's guilty of everything, as the film suggests, then he's guilty of nothing".[18]

 
Last edited:
PinzaC55 said:

The Killing$ of Tony Blair - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

"It is a meticulous documentation of Blair’s odious, immoral and almost unbelievable money-grubbing-from-despots venality", wrote Rod Liddle in an almost entirely positive review in The Spectator. "Galloway is a terrific presenter, dapper in his left-wing hat, all boilerplate rhetoric, biblical quotations and growled sardonic asides".[16] Wendy Ide wrote for The Observer: "While there is no doubt that Blair should be called to account, Galloway’s lack of credibility and air of insufferable sanctimony have the unexpected result of making you want to side with Blair".[17] Yohann Koshy for Vice magazine commented: "There's a tension between [Blair] as a malicious individual, obsessed with money and power, and a cipher for all that's calamitous with life in the early 21st century – Galloway ends the film by saying, after all that, that Blair is 'just a symptom'. But if Blair's guilty of everything, as the film suggests, then he's guilty of nothing".[18]
Click to expand...

Very random post. But I like it.
socrates said:
Nelson
Click to expand...

The terrorist?
 
Last edited:

Back
Top