Hi old-reb,
This has nothing to do with World News (well, maybe OLD World News, lol),
but I was wondering who the Civil War guy in your avatar was? Is he kinfolk of yours?
Just curious.:)

That's not some Civil War guy. That's Old Reb himself. He should call himself Reeeeeaaaaaly Old Reb.

That's not some Civil War guy. That's Old Reb himself. He should call himself Reeeeeaaaaaly Old Reb.

ROFL. Soory reb. :)

Actually, that is me in my younger years. I was Captain CM Morris of the CSS Florida and was captured by a Yankee ship down in Brazil or some place. That was a reeeeely long time ago.

Rendova, your avatar looks like, a not so manly, Robert Mitchim.
Thanks for asking.

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1864/rebel-pirate-florida.htm

Thanks for the very interesting link, old-reb. It's always good to learn something new about the War.

PS The man in my avatar is the great and beautiful ,god-like Alexander the Great. If either the Federals or the Confederates had had him on their side, the War would have been over in WEEKS!!!

PS The man in my avatar is the great and beautiful ,god-like Alexander the Great. If either the Federals or the Confederates had had him on their side, the War would have been over in WEEKS!!!

That is impossible to know, but I'd wager that no matter who the commander was in any situation, the American Civil War would have be prolonged further than a few weeks. And how do you know he was beautiful, you've never seen him.

And how do you know he was beautiful, you've never seen him.

True...as a likely survivor of smallpox he may not have been very "pretty" by todays standards.

How dare you criticize the greatest man who ever lived?
Infidels, you DIE......

Actually, I DID see him. As a wee lass, I saw him ride by on Bucephalus. His glory was such that I was blinded by his beauty, so I didn't catch but a glimpse....one of the advantages to being old, besides getting the senior citizen's discount, and having everyone think I'm a sweet and kindly, helpless old lady, is having witnessed history before my very eyes.

How dare you criticize the greatest man who ever lived?
Infidels, you DIE......

He was most likely a survivor of the crippling disease smallpox, he was under 5 foot, his legs were likely malformed from riding in the saddle so much, he had battle scars galore and faced the intense weather of the desert for years at a time. There are no sculptures or mosaics to my knowledge that exist from when he lived, so every work of art depicting him is pure imagination loosely based on facts. So chances are he wasn't much to look at.

He's also responsible for the deaths of countless people, both military and civilian. How is he the greatest man who ever lived?

He was most likely a survivor of the crippling disease smallpox, he was under 5 foot, his legs were likely malformed from riding in the saddle so much, he had battle scars galore and faced the intense weather of the desert for years at a time. There are no sculptures or mosaics to my knowledge that exist from when he lived, so every work of art depicting him is pure imagination loosely based on facts. So chances are he wasn't much to look at.

He's also responsible for the deaths of countless people, both military and civilian. How is he the greatest man who ever lived?

Sometimes power and performance equals beauty. An automobile that spits and sputters will never be beautiful.

Killing one person is murder but killing millions is greatness.

Anyway that is how great civilizations expand. That includes religions and sometimes the best civilization does not win. The meanest often wins, look at Attila the Hun. It is the natural order of things. The meek do not inherit the world, maybe the hearafter world.

So Alexander the Great looked like Robert Mitchum. Who knew?

I'd always imagined he looked like Sky Low Low, the world-famous wrestler:

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/4995/skylowlow4sh.th.jpg (http://img218.imageshack.us/my.php?image=skylowlow4sh.jpg)

Anyway that is how great civilizations expand. That includes religions and sometimes the best civilization does not win. The meanest often wins, look at Attila the Hun. It is the natural order of things. The meek do not inherit the world, maybe the hearafter world.

I'm not arguing to that end, just the idea that because Alexander of Macedon was a great conqueror that makes him a great person, it simply isn't so. Imperial conquest has always been a part of the expansion of civilization, we use it to better our future standings, that is clearly seen. Generally war is difficult to morally justify because it results in the death of so many, regardless of right-leaning outcomes or good-natured motivations; for that reason, conquerors "sell their soul" in a sense, giving away the lives, economies, and dreams of peoples in favor of selfish national or personal reasons. Alexander was an interesting person, for his desire to learn, control, and skill in battlefield command, as were Attila, Ghengis Khan, and even Hitler. Look at your children, or at the nature outside your home, or pictures of your good friends; life is sacred depending on how you spin it. Imperialistic military commanders have the goal of taking your possessions by means of slaying whatever opposition you present, and for that reason, it is difficult to define any of them as "good", or even "great" men.

Hey, rendova, what's purple and conquered most of the known world?




















Alexander the Grape

Here's something I found randomly surfing. It's from a gay website--as you know, Alex was prob gay.

Alexander was said to be extremely handsome. Many portraits of him were made in his life and these Roman copies may be pretty accurate. Of medium build, he also was said to have a very pleasant scent to his skin and breath, which for those times was pretty remarkable if you know what I mean. He was an incredible physical specimen who loved strenuous exercise -- he would jump off and back on a chariot moving at full speed. His lover Hephaestion was taller and even more handsome, if possible -- the Persian Queen bowed to him instead of Alexander when she was presented to them. Alexander said to the mortified queen "Never mind, Mother, Hephaestion is also Alexander.


How can you doubt it? Just look at his picture up there, gazing off into unconquered territory..... :)

Why do I consider him great? Because of all those who've set out to conquer the world, he came closest to achieving that. For those of us who might think that a one-world government might be the only way, well, there it is--as long as the leader/leaders are merciful.

Here's something I found randomly surfing. It's from a gay website--as you know, Alex was prob gay.
----------------
How can you doubt it? Just look at his picture up there, gazing off into unconquered territory..... :)

All the blathering of homosexual columnists in the world would still have a hard time convincing me, why? Because like most portraits of the rich of famous of old time, the images could be manipulated at command to make them look as they would want. Famous queens and kings would wear clothes that would make them look fatter, get rid of scars in the painting, etc. It is impossible to truly know unless you saw him yourself; either way, he is pretty fat-faced in that pic anyway. :D

Why do I consider him great? Because of all those who've set out to conquer the world, he came closest to achieving that. For those of us who might think that a one-world government might be the only way, well, there it is--as long as the leader/leaders are merciful.

Actually, Ghengis Khan came much closer than that, but since he is an ugly Asian man you wouldn't give him the time of day. And why does imperial conquest make a man great? You spend all this time studying criminals when one of your idols is responsible for the deaths of countless thousands.

As I've said before on these boards, whoever kills one person is a murderer, he who kills hundreds is a war hero.

All the blathering of homosexual columnists in the world would still have a hard time convincing me, why? Because like most portraits of the rich of famous of old time, the images could be manipulated at command to make them look as they would want. Famous queens and kings would wear clothes that would make them look fatter, get rid of scars in the painting, etc. It is impossible to truly know unless you saw him yourself; either way, he is pretty fat-faced in that pic anyway. :D



Actually, Ghengis Khan came much closer than that, but since he is an ugly Asian man you wouldn't give him the time of day. And why does imperial conquest make a man great? You spend all this time studying criminals when one of your idols is responsible for the deaths of countless thousands.

Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse ME!!!!

Where's yr sense of humor or fun?

A criminal? That's a rather harsh assessment. If correct, then Caesar, Marcus Aurelius, and Napoleon were also criminals.

A person has to ask themselves--were the conquered people better off before or after?

The man was flawed, no doubt. He was also human. But I guess it's safe to say, in a nutshell, that he was forced into it--having to put down numerous insurrections right from the very start and then conquering Persia--in which he was only following his father's desires.

PS He was welcomed as a liberator in Egypt.

A person has to ask themselves--were the conquered people better off before or after?

Probably not, because so many of them were dead.:hahanot:

He was forced into traveling across the world, killing people and deposing legitmate rulers? I think not. At least not any more than Hitler was forced to go into Poland.

Simply put, I see him as a greek god come to life, brought down by the fatal flaw so prevalent in the myths he emulated himself after.
In truth, his story is a sad one, not one of ultimate triumph.
A fascinating character.

From this website:http://www.interesting.com/stories/alexander/



"Alexander is one of the most fascinating personalities in human history. Although he was the son of a king and inherited an empire that included most of the Greek city-states, Alexander's own conquests are what have made him admired, vilified, emulated, and studied for over two millennia.

Through the years, so many stories have been told and retold about Alexander the Great that he has become more like a character from Greek mythology than a real human being. This, I'm sure, would have made him very happy. Being a Greek hero was always his ambition.









Alexander's ambition
Growing up, Alexander was fascinated by Homer's Iliad. It was the character of Achilles -- the hero of the story and the exemplar of all manly virtues -- that especially attracted him.





Sometime in his early formative years he decided to model himself after Achilles.

Emulating the famous hero was apparently encouraged by his teacher, the great philosopher Aristotle. According to the Roman historian Plutarch, Aristotle personally annotated a copy of the Iliad for Alexander. Alexander kept it with him throughout all his later travels, even sleeping with it under his pillow.

Alexander's mother, Olympias, clearly encouraged him. This woman couldn't have been more meddling and ambitious for Alexander if she herself were a scheming goddess on Mount Olympus. In fact, she may have consorted with the gods. Or, at least, that's the rumor she spread.

Olympias informed her son that he was actually a descendent of Achilles. And probably Hercules, too.






And so, in keeping with his family tradition and the great expectations of his mother, Alexander looked for any opportunity to demonstrate his heroic strength and courage. "

Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse ME!!!!

I'm sorry, did you fart?

Where's yr sense of humor or fun?

I've been told a have a very good sense of humor, but that really doesn't coorelate with the rather serious topic of calling "Alexander the Great" a "great" man. We're having a mildly mature discussion here, if you wish to drop it, tell me.

A criminal? That's a rather harsh assessment. If correct, then Caesar, Marcus Aurelius, and Napoleon were also criminals.

I never said he was a criminal to be nitpicky, but yes, all conquerors in his class are responsible for crimes against humanity in some way or another for their imperialistic pursuit and destruction of nations.

A person has to ask themselves--were the conquered people better off before or after?

Does the quality of living after the conflicts in his newly acquired territories absolve the sins of invasion and slaughter?

The man was flawed, no doubt. He was also human. But I guess it's safe to say, in a nutshell, that he was forced into it--having to put down numerous insurrections right from the very start and then conquering Persia--in which he was only following his father's desires.

He was not forced into it. Putting down insurrections does not force one to invade Egypt, India, Persia, and other lands. His father's wishes did not force him to do that, and whatever flaws inherent in him, do not clear his guilt.
He may have brought about change for the better, and left a remarkable legacy, but he has "sinned" the way all of his kind have. The means is just as important, if not more, than the results or intents.

PS He was welcomed as a liberator in Egypt.

Wahoo!

LOL, if you can have a stormtrooper in yr avatar, I can have Alex in mine.

To each his own, eh?

Truce.

LOL, if you can have a stormtrooper in yr avatar, I can have Alex in mine.

When did I say you couldn't? For shame, three pelvic thrusts in your direction as punishment.

Yes, we've come a long way from the Confederate ship's captain....I say, if old-reb likes Alex, then the picture can stay.

I like Alexander, I think he improved the life of those he conquered or they would have thrown him out.

I like Alexander

Pretty much everyone here likes him, myself included.

Pretty much everyone here likes him, myself included.

It goes without saying that you were just playing with Rendova, like pulling a girls pigtails in school. Opps, do they still have pigtails?

Wasnt it good to see they had to hire an Irishman to play Alexander in Hollywood,haha.