World's Greatest Draft (1 Viewer)

[larry_boy_44]

You said he "received the stigmata" in a list of factual things he did. That implies much, much more than what you are saying now. As for the Christ, in casual debates I don't mind but when you are listing attributes to be considered for judgment I don't recall you using the Christ aspect as it seemed like you were deliberately and rightly staying away from that.

I was, and I did fix the stigmata statement, I didn't realize I had said it that way... and never re-read it after I posted it...

 

[mad sweeney]

You said he "received the stigmata" in a list of factual things he did. That implies much, much more than what you are saying now. As for the Christ, in casual debates I don't mind but when you are listing attributes to be considered for judgment I don't recall you using the Christ aspect as it seemed like you were deliberately and rightly staying away from that.

I was, and I did fix the stigmata statement, I didn't realize I had said it that way... and never re-read it after I posted it...

All's well that ends well.I wanna know why the most action of the draft had to happen after midnight!

 

[Mario Kart]

Wow, not only did you go to mass and drink the whole chalice but you had peyote and cilocybin mushroom pizza afterwards. The assassination very literally would've happened if he didn't do it, there was a huge plot in motion and he was one of seven men in position to try. That he got the kill is a matter of luck. I am not sure what the death toll of WWI was but can it top the 6 miilion Jews alone, much less the war casualties of the war Hitler started? And before you go into WWII being a product of the war Princip "started", I lay the blame squarely on the Treaty of Versaille for completely crippling Germany to the point that they were easily manipulated into the bloody World War. Does Princip stand out against Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot, who had prisoners dig their own mass graves before clubbing them to death to save bullets? Mengele who personally tortured and killed thousands (including thousands of children) by disgusting and inhumanly grotesque experiments? Who boiled, burned, crushed, amputated, maimed, infected and in some cases even sewed together twins, as well as dissected many while still alive, all just to see how long a person could live under those conditions. You think the lucky shooter of seven assassins "easily" outranks these guys as villains? Really?

Where there is smoke there is not always fire. Every fire needs a spark and Princip was that spark. Was he "lucky" to get the kill? Maybe, but he is the one who did it. Was Booth lucky? Was Oswald lucky? Maybe, but their actions caused much aftermath. Same with Princip. Saying war was going to be inevitable is not accurate at all. Tensions may have been high but war was not imminent. Every war as a catalyst, a spark, a reason for doing so. Before Princip, what was that spark, the catalyst, the reason? 15 million people are assumed dead due to WWI. 60 million are assumed dead from WWII. Those numbers can be attributed to Princip. If there is a "family tree" in all of this, Princip is the common ancestor. Everything can lead back to him, his action, the other six inactions, and the one bullet (two if you count the wife). If the plot to kill Ferdinand does not succeed, who knows where the world would be. But, since it did succeed, WWI happened, the Treaty of Versailles happens, the rise of Hitler happens, the Cold War begins. Why did this happen? All because of one bullet from Princip. He changed history and is responsible for ~75 million deaths at the hand of killing two people. Did he intend for all of that to happen? Probably not, but it did and he was responsible for it.This pick, I will agree with you, is to start debate, but I have not been one in this thread, yet. Now, Mary as a celebrity... I am thinking disco balls, bell bottoms, and pot. I think she would have fit in that scene.

 

[flysack]

10.19 The Virgin Mary, Celebrity

This makes me want to quit this thing right now.Seriously. This is absurd.

I am not a Catholic. But I can certainly see that this would be offensive to someone who venerates her. And he should be ashamed of himself.

Are you talking about the same people who venerate her and see her in deformed potato chips? Let's just be clear here.

 

[FUBAR]

One thing I have to say about all the Mary sightings and her being immediately recognizable throughout the world, I've never, ever seen her look Middle Eastern or Jewish or anything other than a white woman. Does the fact that she is recognized as someone who she really wasn't a factor? I mean, I've never seen an image of her that looks anything close to what she probably looked like...

That's pretty much my point. There's zero chance she looked like this This is probably closer.

 

[timschochet]

Good morning. Interesting debate last night. I had no idea that some Christians like Larry believe that Mary lost her virginity at some point in her life- is this important anyhow? I thought the key point here was that she was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus- isn't at least this a universal assumption among Christians?

In any event, I don't mind her being called "The Virgin Mary" for recognition purposes.

Gotta say, though, (and Larry's gonna LOVE this one), doesn't Larry's team have a very Catholic feel to it? You've got Jesus and the Virgin. If we don't know what they look like, there's Raphael eager to show us. And of course where does he show us this? Why in a beautiful cathedral designed by Bernini. And who's preaching in that Cathedral? Why, Assisi of course. He might very well be preaching Proverbs, as written by Solomon. And when he's done preaching, look who's there at the grand organ! (I know, Bach was a Lutheran, but it's still baroque, so it kinda fits into the whole Catholic traditional thing...) I mean really, Larry, when I look at your team, all I can see is the grandeur of the Catholic church.

 

[timschochet]

Moving on to Princip. His selection is problematic at best, unless you believe that the assassination of the Archduke was in itself evil- I don't. Ferdinand was an idiot, but he represented something much worse to the Serbs, and this was an act of revolution. Whether or not assassination is itself an immoral act is a whole other question; no need to debate it here.

The problem is that Mario doesn't make any claim about the evil nature of an assassination; his whole argument is that this particular assassination caused the onslaught of WWI, and the death of millions. And the problem with this argument is, we can safely assume that such was not Princip's intent. And there it stops for me. I don't need to know whether or not other factors might have caused World War I, though I suspect they did; that part is irrelevant. The most important thing that matters to me in terms of evaluating villainy is intent to do or cause evil. Unless Princip knowingly plotted the death of millions, it really shouldn't matter what the consequences of his action was, however terrible.

As an analogy, there was a Jew named Hershel Grynspan who, in protest against the Nazi persecution of his family, assassinated a German diplomat in 1938. This act resulted in the Night of Broken Glass, or Kristallnacht, an infamous progrom against the Jews, which really marks the beginning of the Holocaust. Are we therefore to assume that Grynspan is responsible for the atrocities of the Kristallnacht? Another example- an unknown Chinese assassin fired a rifle at a Japanese soldier in Nanking in 1937 after that city was occuppied. The Japanese authorities were thereafter determined to teach the Chinese "a lesson in dicipline", and they went on a rampage, killing and raping at whim, causing one of the great crimes of the 20th century. Is this what the Chinese assasin had in mind?

The answer to both these questions, and to the question of Princip, is that none of these assasins had any inkling of the damage sparked by their actions. It's ridiculous to blame them for it. They are simply unfortunate players in history. In conclusion:

1. A villain should, by definition, be someone who commits an evil act.

2. For an act to be evil, it must be committed knowingly. Otherwise, we can assign no moral value to it's having taken place.

3. Therefore, in the matter of Princip, we can only evaluate him on the assassination of the Archduke, not on the unintended consequences of that act.

4. IMO, based on this, Princip becomes probably the weakest villain taken in this draft.

 

[Mister CIA]

Yankee I like almost all your picks, except for one misplaced category, and one pick I think you overrate:

The misplaced category is St. Augustine. He is one of the most important religious figures in history, and I know he is a Saint as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, but he hardly defines what I meant by the category term "saint"; I was relating that to humanitarian. I think Augustine is far more suited to the religious figure category.

The overrated pick is Madonna. I really like Madonna, always have, but one of the top 20 musician/performers in history? By record sales, sure. By merit, I just can't go there.

First, the Saint thing - are you serious? Why put saint in that category then? And not for nothing, but by definition a saint is someone that belongs in the discussion of people that have done good for the world at some personal sacrifice. But, if that is where this is going then move him to religious figure. I suggest you make this a little clear to everyone as we move forward.

Now, to Madonna - if we don't go by record sales, what do we go by? And before you say influence in the medium, be careful because you are going to eliminate from contention a ton of people that can go there. She is the most successful woman in music worldwide according to the Guiness Book of Records. I'm not sure what you want in that category if it isn't that.

Talent, artistic merit .... along those lines she does not even approach my top 100. By your reasoning, McDonalds serves the best food. Now, if we had a marketing and self-promotion category, I might consider her top 5.

 

[FUBAR]

Good morning. Interesting debate last night. I had no idea that some Christians like Larry believe that Mary lost her virginity at some point in her life- is this important anyhow? I thought the key point here was that she was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus- isn't at least this a universal assumption among Christians?

Yes. that is the point. I'm no biblical scholar, but my Dad is ordained and teaches, he says Mary and Joseph had quite a few other children which were not divine. You don't hear much about Jesus's half brothers and sisters but could you imagine the sibling rivalry?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I’ve been wrestling with when to make this pick, as there many voters may not know who he is and others may discount the reasons that scholars of world religions hold him in such high esteem. Heading into the back stretch of the draft seems like a good time. Depending on how far one wants to take the argument of the influence his religion exerted on Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism, you could make a case for him to be the #1 religious figure in World history. I wouldn’t take it that far, but I do place him just behind the big three founders and ahead of the mythical figures being drafted as well as the exponents who helped refine and spread those faiths. The two most important influences of Zoroastrian beliefs are an advancement of the Monotheistic belief structure, and the concept of dualism that is at the core of the religions that followed.

Zarathushtra (Zoroaster) – Religious Figure

Zoroastrianism (IPA: /ˌzɔroʊˈæstriəˌnɪzəm/) is the religion and philosophy based on the teachings ascribed to the prophet Zoroaster, after whom the religion is named. The term Zoroastrianism is, in general usage, essentially synonymous with Mazdaism, i.e. the worship of Ahura Mazda, exalted by Zoroaster as the supreme divine authority.

Zoroastrianism is uniquely important in the history of religion because of its possible formative links to both Western and Eastern religious traditions.[1] In the opinion of Mary Boyce, as "the oldest of the revealed credal religions", Zoroastrianism "probably had more influence on mankind directly or indirectly than any other faith".[2][3]

I don’t have time to write more now but will try to expand later.

 

[flysack]

Gotta say, though, (and Larry's gonna LOVE this one), doesn't Larry's team have a very Catholic feel to it? You've got Jesus and the Virgin. If we don't know what they look like, there's Raphael eager to show us. And of course where does he show us this? Why in a beautiful cathedral designed by Bernini. And who's preaching in that Cathedral? Why, Assisi of course. He might very well be preaching Proverbs, as written by Solomon. And when he's done preaching, look who's there at the grand organ! (I know, Bach was a Lutheran, but it's still baroque, so it kinda fits into the whole Catholic traditional thing...) I mean really, Larry, when I look at your team, all I can see is the grandeur of the Catholic church.

The cherry on this MY-CHEERY-IS-STILL-INTACT Sunday would be drafting a certain Portuguese novelist. (go ahead and at the dense heresy of my pun. You know you want to...)

 

[Ozymandias]

Moving on to Princip. His selection is problematic at best, unless you believe that the assassination of the Archduke was in itself evil- I don't. Ferdinand was an idiot, but he represented something much worse to the Serbs, and this was an act of revolution. Whether or not assassination is itself an immoral act is a whole other question; no need to debate it here.

The problem is that Mario doesn't make any claim about the evil nature of an assassination; his whole argument is that this particular assassination caused the onslaught of WWI, and the death of millions. And the problem with this argument is, we can safely assume that such was not Princip's intent. And there it stops for me. I don't need to know whether or not other factors might have caused World War I, though I suspect they did; that part is irrelevant. The most important thing that matters to me in terms of evaluating villainy is intent to do or cause evil. Unless Princip knowingly plotted the death of millions, it really shouldn't matter what the consequences of his action was, however terrible.

As an analogy, there was a Jew named Hershel Grynspan who, in protest against the Nazi persecution of his family, assassinated a German diplomat in 1938. This act resulted in the Night of Broken Glass, or Kristallnacht, an infamous progrom against the Jews, which really marks the beginning of the Holocaust. Are we therefore to assume that Grynspan is responsible for the atrocities of the Kristallnacht? Another example- an unknown Chinese assassin fired a rifle at a Japanese soldier in Nanking in 1937 after that city was occuppied. The Japanese authorities were thereafter determined to teach the Chinese "a lesson in dicipline", and they went on a rampage, killing and raping at whim, causing one of the great crimes of the 20th century. Is this what the Chinese assasin had in mind?

The answer to both these questions, and to the question of Princip, is that none of these assasins had any inkling of the damage sparked by their actions. It's ridiculous to blame them for it. They are simply unfortunate players in history. In conclusion:

1. A villain should, by definition, be someone who commits an evil act.

2. For an act to be evil, it must be committed knowingly. Otherwise, we can assign no moral value to it's having taken place.

3. Therefore, in the matter of Princip, we can only evaluate him on the assassination of the Archduke, not on the unintended consequences of that act.

4. IMO, based on this, Princip becomes probably the weakest villain taken in this draft.

I think that's probably accurate. It doesn't quite square with what your were saying about Jesus Christ causing all those deaths, but I can't remember if you were arguing for or against in that instance (and I'm too lazy to look it up). It may not square with what you were saying about Martin Luther. Yes, it's true that he was anti-Jew (not an uncommon view in the zeitgeist), but it is also true that at the time of Christ, the Jews were anti everyone not a Jew.

 

[FUBAR]

Suleiman the Magnificent, Leader, Ottoman Empire

At the time of Suleiman's death the Ottoman Empire, with its unrivaled military strength, economic riches and territorial extent, was the world's foremost power.[63] Suleiman's conquests had brought under the control of the Empire the major Muslim cities (Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem, Damascus, and Baghdad), many Balkan provinces (reaching present day Croatia and Austria), and most of North Africa. His expansion into Europe had given the Ottoman Turks a powerful presence in the European balance of power. Indeed, such was the perceived threat of the Ottoman Empire under the reign of Suleiman that ambassador xxxxx warned of Europe's imminent conquest: "On [the Turks'] side are the resources of a mighty empire, strength unimpaired, habituation to victory, endurance of toil, unity, discipline, frugality and watchfulness... Can we doubt what the result will be?...When the Turks have settled with Persia, they will fly at our throats supported by the might of the whole East; how unprepared we are I dare not say."[64] Even thirty years after his death "Sultan Solyman" was quoted by the English author William Shakespeare as a military prodigy in The Merchant of Venice (Act 2, Scene 1).

Suleiman's legacy was not, however, merely in the military field. The French traveler xxxxx a century later bears witness to the "strong agricultural base of the country, the well being of the peasantry, the abundance of staple foods, and the pre-eminence of organization in Suleiman's government".[65] The administrative and legal reforms which earned him the name Law Giver ensured the Empire's survival long after his death, an achievement which "took many generations of decadent heirs to undo".[66]

Through his personal patronage, Suleiman also presided over the Golden Age of the Ottoman Empire, representing the pinnacle of the Ottoman Turks' cultural achievement in the realm of architecture, literature, art, theology and philosophy.[3][67] Today the skyline of the Bosphorus, and of many cities in modern Turkey and the former Ottoman provinces, are still adorned with the architectural works of Xxxxx Xxxxx. One of these, the Süleymaniye Mosque, is the final resting place of Suleiman and xxxx: they are buried in separate domed mausoleums attached to the mosque.

Suleiman I (Ottoman Turkish: سليمان Sulaymān, Turkish: Süleyman; almost always Kanuni Sultan Süleyman) (27 April 1494/1495/6 November 1494 – 5/6/7 September 1566), was the tenth and longest-reigning Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, from 1520 to his death in 1566. He is known in the West as Suleiman the Magnificent[1] and in the East, as the Lawgiver (in Turkish Kanuni; Arabic: القانونى‎, al‐Qānūnī), for his complete reconstruction of the Ottoman legal system. Suleiman became the pre-eminent monarch of 16th century Europe, presiding over the apex of the Ottoman Empire's military, political and economic power. Suleiman personally led Ottoman armies to conquer the Christian strongholds of Belgrade, Rhodes, and most of Hungary before his conquests were checked at the Siege of Vienna in 1529. He annexed most of the Middle East in his conflict with the Persians and large swaths of North Africa as far west as Algeria. Under his rule, the Ottoman fleet dominated the seas from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf.[2]

At the helm of an expanding empire, Suleiman personally instituted legislative changes relating to society, education, taxation, and criminal law. His canonical law (or the Kanuns) fixed the form of the empire for centuries after his death. Not only was Suleiman a distinguished poet and goldsmith in his own right; he also became a great patron of culture, overseeing the golden age of the Ottoman Empire's artistic, literary and architectural development.[3]

In a break with Ottoman tradition, Suleiman married as his fourth wife a harem girl Roxelana, who became Hürrem Sultan; her intrigues as queen in the court and power over the Sultan have become as famous as Suleiman himself. Their son, Selim II, succeeded Suleiman following his death in 1566 after 46 years of rule.

Conquests in Europe

Upon succeeding his father, Suleiman began a series of military conquests, eventually putting down a revolt led by the Ottoman-appointed governor of Damascus in 1521. Suleiman soon made preparations for the conquest of Belgrade from the Kingdom of Hungary—something his great-grandfather Mehmed II had failed to achieve. Its capture was vital in eliminating the Hungarians who, following the defeats of the Serbs, Bulgarians and Byzantines, remained the only formidable force who could block further Ottoman gains in Europe. Suleiman encircled Belgrade and began a series of heavy bombardments from an island in the Danube. With a garrison of only 700 men, and receiving no aid from Hungary, Belgrade fell in August 1521.[10]

Suleiman as a young man

News of the conquest of one of Christendom's major strongholds spread fear across Europe. As the ambassador of the Holy Roman Empire to Istanbul was to note, "The capture of Belgrade was at the origin of the dramatic events which engulfed Hungary. It led to the death of XXXX, the capture of Buda, the occupation of Transylvania, the ruin of a flourishing kingdom and the fear of neighbouring nations that they would suffer the same fate…"[11]

The road to Hungary and Austria lay open, but Suleiman diverted his attention to the Eastern Mediterranean island of Rhodes whose proximity to Asia Minor and the Levant had posed a perennial problem to Ottoman interests. In the summer of 1522, taking advantage of the navy he inherited from his father, Suleiman dispatched an armada of some 400 ships whilst personally leading an army of 100,000 across Asia Minor to a point opposite the island.[12] Following a siege of five months with brutal encounters, XXXX capitulated and Suleiman allowed the Knights of Rhodes to depart and form their new base in Malta.

As relations between Hungary and the Ottoman Empire deteriorated, Suleiman resumed his campaign in Eastern Europe and on 29 August 1526, he defeated XXXX of Hungary (1506–26) at the Battle of Mohács. In its wake, Hungarian resistance collapsed and the Ottoman Empire became the pre-eminent power in Eastern Europe.[13] Upon encountering the lifeless body of King Louis, Suleiman is said to have lamented: "I came indeed in arms against him; but it was not my wish that he should be thus cut off while he scarcely tasted the sweets of life and royalty."[14][15]

Under XXXX and his brother XXXX, Archduke of Austria, the Habsburgs reoccupied Buda and took Hungary. As a result, in 1529, Suleiman once again marched through the valley of the Danube and regained control of Buda and in the following autumn laid siege to Vienna. It was to be the Ottoman Empire's most ambitious expedition and the apogee of its drive towards the West. With a reinforced garrison of 16,000 men,[16] the Austrians inflicted upon Suleiman his first defeat, sowing the seeds of a bitter Ottoman-Habsburg rivalry which lasted until the 20th century.[17] A second attempt to conquer Vienna failed in 1532, with Suleiman retreating before reaching the city. In both cases, the Ottoman army was plagued by bad weather (forcing them to leave behind essential siege equipment) and was hobbled by overstretched supply lines.[18]

By the 1540s a renewal of the conflict in Hungary presented Suleiman with the opportunity to avenge the defeat suffered at Vienna. Some Hungarian nobles proposed that Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria (1519–64), who was ruler of neighbouring Austria and tied to XXXX's family by marriage, be King of Hungary, citing previous agreements that the Habsburgs would take the Hungarian throne if Louis died without heirs.[19] However, other nobles turned to the nobleman XXXX who, being supported by Suleiman, remained unrecognized by the Christian powers of Europe. In 1541 the Habsburgs once again engaged in conflict with the Ottomans, attempting to lay siege to Buda. With their efforts repulsed, and more Habsburg fortresses captured as a result,[20] Ferdinand and his brother XXXX were forced to conclude a humiliating five-year treaty with Suleiman. Ferdinand renounced his claim to the Kingdom of Hungary and was forced to pay a fixed yearly sum to the Sultan for the Hungarian lands he continued to control. Of more symbolic importance, the treaty referred to Charles V not as 'Emperor', but in rather plainer terms as the 'King of Spain', leading Suleiman to consider himself the true 'Caesar'.[21]

With his main European rivals subdued, Suleiman had assured the Ottoman Empire a powerful role in the political landscape of Europe.

Conquests in Asia

As Suleiman stabilized his European frontiers, he now turned his attention to the ever present threat posed by the Shi'a Safavid dynasty of Persia (Iran). Two events in particular were to precipitate a recurrence of tensions. First, XXXX had the Baghdad governor loyal to Suleiman killed and replaced with an adherent of the Shah, and second, the governor of Bitlis had defected and sworn allegiance to the Safavids.[22] As a result, in 1533, Suleiman ordered his Grand Vizier XXXX to lead an army into Asia where he retook Bitlis and occupied Tabriz without resistance. Having joined XXXX in 1534, Suleiman made a push towards Persia, only to find the Shah sacrificing territory instead of facing a pitched battle, resorting to harassment of the Ottoman army as it proceeded along the harsh interior.[23] When in the following year Suleiman and XXXX made a grand entrance into Baghdad, its commander surrendered the city, thereby confirming Suleiman as the leader of the Islamic world and the legitimate successor to the Abbasid Caliphs.[24]

Attempting to defeat the Shah once and for all, Suleiman embarked upon a second campaign in 1548–1549. As in the previous attempt, Tahmasp avoided confrontation with the Ottoman army and instead chose to retreat, torching Azerbaijan in the process and exposing the Ottoman army to the harsh winter of the Caucasus.[23] Suleiman abandoned the campaign with temporary Ottoman gains in Tabriz and the Azerbaijan region of Iran, a lasting presence in the province of Van, and some forts in Georgia.[25]

In 1553 Suleiman began his third and final campaign against the Shah. Having initially lost territories in Erzurum to the Shah's son, Suleiman retaliated by recapturing Erzurum, crossing the Upper Euphrates and laying waste to parts of Persia. The Shah's army continued its strategy of avoiding the Ottomans, leading to a stalemate from which neither army made any significant gain. In 1554, a settlement was signed which was to conclude Suleiman's Asian campaigns. It included the return of Tabriz, but secured Baghdad, lower Mesopotamia, the mouths of the river Euphrates and Tigris, as well as part of the Persian Gulf.[26] The Shah also promised to cease all raids into Ottoman territory.[27]

Mediterranean and North Africa

Having consolidated his conquests on land, Suleiman was greeted with the news that the fortress of Koroni in Morea (the modern Peloponnese) had been lost to XXXX's admiral, XXXX. The presence of the Spanish in the Eastern Mediterranean concerned Suleiman, who saw it as an early indication of Charles V's intention to rival Ottoman dominance in the region. Recognizing the need to reassert the navy's preeminence in the Mediterranean, Suleiman appointed an exceptional naval commander in the form of Khair ad Din, known to Europeans as Barbarossa. Once appointed admiral-in-chief, Barbarossa was charged with rebuilding the Ottoman fleet, to such an extent that the Ottoman navy equalled in number those of all other Mediterranean countries put together.[28] In 1535 XXXX won an important victory against the Ottomans at Tunis, which together with the war against Venice the following year, led Suleiman to accept proposals from Francis I of France to form an alliance against XXXX.[22] In 1538, the Spanish fleet was defeated by Barbarossa at the Battle of Preveza, securing the eastern Mediterranean for the Turks for 33 years until the defeat at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571.

East of Morocco, huge territories in North Africa were annexed. The Barbary States of Tripolitania, Tunisia, and Algeria became autonomous provinces of the Empire, serving as the leading edge of Suleiman's conflict with XXXX, whose attempt to drive out the Turks failed in 1541.[29] The piracy carried on thereafter by the Barbary pirates of North Africa can be seen in the context of the wars against Spain. For a short period Ottoman expansion secured naval dominance in the Mediterranean. Ottoman navies also controlled the Red Sea, and held the Persian Gulf until 1554, when their ships were defeated by the navy of the Portuguese Empire. The Portuguese had taken Ormus (in the Strait of Hormuz) in 1515 and would continue to vie with Suleiman's forces for control of Aden, in present-day Yemen.

The Siege of Malta in 1565: Arrival of the Turkish fleet, by Matteo Perez d' Aleccio

In 1542, facing a common Habsburg enemy, XXXX sought to renew the Franco-Ottoman alliance. As a result, Suleiman dispatched 100 galleys[30] under Barbarossa to assist the French in the western Mediterranean. Barbarossa pillaged the coast of Naples and Sicily before reaching France where Francis made Toulon the Ottoman admirals naval headquarters. The same campaign had seen Barbarossa attack and capture Nice in 1543. By 1544, a peace between XXXX and XXXX had put a temporary end to the alliance between France and the Ottoman Empire.

Elsewhere in the Mediterranean, when the Knights Hospitallers were re-established as the Knights of Malta in 1530, their actions against Muslim navies quickly drew the ire of the Ottomans who assembled another massive army in order to dislodge the Knights from Malta. The Ottomans invaded in 1565, undertaking the Great Siege of Malta, which began on May 18 and lasted until September 8, and is portrayed vividly in the frescoes of Matteo Perez d'Aleccio in the Hall of St. Michael and St. George. At first it seemed that this would be a repeat of the battle on Rhodes, with most of Malta's cities destroyed and half the Knights killed in battle; but a relief force from Spain entered the battle, resulting in the loss of 30,000 Ottoman troops.[31]

Administrative reforms

Whilst Sultan Suleiman was known as "the Magnificent" in the West, he was always Kanuni Suleiman or "The Lawgiver" to his own Ottoman subjects. As the historian Lord Kinross notes, "Not only was he a great military campaigner, a man of the sword, as his father and great-grandfather had been before him. He differed from them in the extent to which he was also a man of the pen. He was a great legislator, standing out in the eyes of his people as a high-minded sovereign and a magnanimous exponent of justice".[32] The overriding law of the empire was the Shari'ah, or Sacred Law, which as the divine law of Islam was outside of the Sultan's powers to change. Yet an area of distinct law known as the Kanuns (canonical legislation) was dependent on Suleiman's will alone, covering areas such as criminal law, land tenure and taxation.[33] He collected all the judgments that had been issued by the nine Ottoman Sultans who preceded him. After eliminating duplications and choosing between contradictory statements, he issued a single legal code, all the while being careful not to violate the basic laws of Islam.[34] It was within this framework that Suleiman, supported by his Grand Mufti Ebussuud, sought to reform the legislation to adapt to a rapidly changing empire. When the Kanun laws attained their final form, the code of laws became known as the kanun‐i Osmani, or the "Ottoman laws". Suleiman's legal code was to last more than three hundred years.[35]

Suleiman gave particular attention to the plight of the rayas, Christian subjects who worked the land of the Sipahis. His Kanune Raya, or "Code of the Rayas", reformed the law governing levies and taxes to be paid by the rayas, raising their status above serfdom to the extent that Christian serfs would migrate to Turkish territories to benefit from the reforms.[36] The Sultan also played a role in protecting the Jewish subjects of his empire for centuries to come. In late 1553 or 1554, on the suggestion of his favorite doctor and dentist, the Spanish Jew XXXX, the Sultan issued a firman formally denouncing blood libels against the Jews.[37] Furthermore, Suleiman enacted new criminal and police legislation, prescribing a set of fines for specific offences, as well as reducing the instances requiring death or mutilation. In the area of taxation, taxes were levied on various goods and produce, including animals, mines, profits of trade, and import-export duties. In addition to taxes, officials who had fallen into disrepute were likely to have their land and property confiscated by the Sultan.

Education was another important area for the Sultan. Schools attached to mosques and funded by religious foundations provided a largely free education to Muslim boys in advance of the Christian countries of the time.[38] In his capital, Suleiman increased the number of mektebs (primary schools) to fourteen, teaching children to read and write as well as the principles of Islam. Children wishing further education could proceed to one of eight medreses (colleges), whose studies included grammar, metaphysics, philosophy, astronomy, and astrology.[38] Higher medreses provided education of university status, whose graduates became imams or teachers. Educational centers were often one of many buildings surrounding the courtyards of mosques, others included libraries, refectories, fountains, soup kitchens and hospitals for the benefit of the public.

Cultural achievements

Under Suleiman's patronage, the Ottoman empire entered the golden age of its cultural development. Hundreds of imperial artistic societies (called the Ehl-i Hiref, "Community of the Talented") were administered at the Imperial seat, the Topkapı Palace. After an apprenticeship, artists and craftsmen could advance in rank within their field and were paid commensurate wages in quarterly annual installments. Payroll registers that survive testify to the breadth of Suleiman's patronage of the arts, the earliest of documents dating from 1526 list 40 societies with over 600 members. The Ehl-i Hiref attracted the empire's most talented artisans to the Sultan's court, both from the Islamic world and recently conquered territories in Europe, resulting in a blend of Islamic, Turkish and European cultures.[39] Artisans in service of the court included painters, book binders, furriers, jewellers and goldsmiths. Whereas previous rulers had been influenced by Persian culture (Suleiman's father, Selim I, wrote poetry in Persian), Suleiman's patronage of the arts had seen the Ottoman Empire assert its own artistic legacy.[40]

Suleiman himself was an accomplished poet, writing in Persian and Turkish under the nom de plume Muhibbi (Lover). Some of Suleiman's verses have become Turkish proverbs, such as the well-known Everyone aims at the same meaning, but many are the versions of the story. When his young son Mehmed died in 1543, he composed a moving chronogram to commemorate the year: Peerless among princes, my Sultan Mehmed.[41][42] In addition to Suleiman's own work, many great talents enlivened the literary world during Suleiman's rule, including Fuzuli and Baki. The literary historian E. J. W. Gibb observed that "at no time, even in Turkey, was greater encouragement given to poetry than during the reign of this Sultan".[41] Suleiman's most famous verse is:

Süleymaniye Mosque in Istanbul, built by Mimar Sinan, Suleiman's chief architect

The people think of wealth and power as the greatest fate,

But in this world a spell of health is the best state.

What men call sovereignty is a worldly strife and constant war;

Worship of God is the highest throne, the happiest of all estates.[43]

Suleiman also became renowned for sponsoring a series of monumental architectural developments within his empire. The Sultan sought to turn Istanbul into the center of Islamic civilization by a series of projects, including bridges, mosques, palaces and various charitable and social establishments. The greatest of these were built by the Sultan's chief architect, Mimar Sinan, under whom Ottoman architecture reached its zenith. Sinan became responsible for over three hundred monuments throughout the empire, including his two masterpieces, the Süleymaniye and Selimiye mosques—the latter built in Edirne in the reign of Suleiman's son Selim II. Suleiman also restored the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and the Jerusalem city walls (which are the current walls of the Old City of Jerusalem), renovated the Kaaba in Mecca, and constructed a complex in Damascus.[44]

 

[mad sweeney]

Wow, not only did you go to mass and drink the whole chalice but you had peyote and cilocybin mushroom pizza afterwards. The assassination very literally would've happened if he didn't do it, there was a huge plot in motion and he was one of seven men in position to try. That he got the kill is a matter of luck. I am not sure what the death toll of WWI was but can it top the 6 miilion Jews alone, much less the war casualties of the war Hitler started? And before you go into WWII being a product of the war Princip "started", I lay the blame squarely on the Treaty of Versaille for completely crippling Germany to the point that they were easily manipulated into the bloody World War. Does Princip stand out against Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot, who had prisoners dig their own mass graves before clubbing them to death to save bullets? Mengele who personally tortured and killed thousands (including thousands of children) by disgusting and inhumanly grotesque experiments? Who boiled, burned, crushed, amputated, maimed, infected and in some cases even sewed together twins, as well as dissected many while still alive, all just to see how long a person could live under those conditions. You think the lucky shooter of seven assassins "easily" outranks these guys as villains? Really?

Where there is smoke there is not always fire. Every fire needs a spark and Princip was that spark. Was he "lucky" to get the kill? Maybe, but he is the one who did it. Was Booth lucky? Was Oswald lucky? Maybe, but their actions caused much aftermath. Same with Princip. Saying war was going to be inevitable is not accurate at all. Tensions may have been high but war was not imminent. Every war as a catalyst, a spark, a reason for doing so. Before Princip, what was that spark, the catalyst, the reason?

15 million people are assumed dead due to WWI. 60 million are assumed dead from WWII. Those numbers can be attributed to Princip. If there is a "family tree" in all of this, Princip is the common ancestor. Everything can lead back to him, his action, the other six inactions, and the one bullet (two if you count the wife).

If the plot to kill Ferdinand does not succeed, who knows where the world would be. But, since it did succeed, WWI happened, the Treaty of Versailles happens, the rise of Hitler happens, the Cold War begins. Why did this happen? All because of one bullet from Princip. He changed history and is responsible for ~75 million deaths at the hand of killing two people. Did he intend for all of that to happen? Probably not, but it did and he was responsible for it.

This pick, I will agree with you, is to start debate, but I have not been one in this thread, yet. Now, Mary as a celebrity... I am thinking disco balls, bell bottoms, and pot. I think she would have fit in that scene.

That is an exceptionally long stretch. I mean, while you're at it why not give him all the deaths from the proxy cold wars and add in the oppression of Communist Europr. After all, it was a result of WWII, which Princip was solely responsible for.

 

[FUBAR]

Wow, not only did you go to mass and drink the whole chalice but you had peyote and cilocybin mushroom pizza afterwards. The assassination very literally would've happened if he didn't do it, there was a huge plot in motion and he was one of seven men in position to try. That he got the kill is a matter of luck. I am not sure what the death toll of WWI was but can it top the 6 miilion Jews alone, much less the war casualties of the war Hitler started? And before you go into WWII being a product of the war Princip "started", I lay the blame squarely on the Treaty of Versaille for completely crippling Germany to the point that they were easily manipulated into the bloody World War. Does Princip stand out against Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot, who had prisoners dig their own mass graves before clubbing them to death to save bullets? Mengele who personally tortured and killed thousands (including thousands of children) by disgusting and inhumanly grotesque experiments? Who boiled, burned, crushed, amputated, maimed, infected and in some cases even sewed together twins, as well as dissected many while still alive, all just to see how long a person could live under those conditions. You think the lucky shooter of seven assassins "easily" outranks these guys as villains? Really?

Where there is smoke there is not always fire. Every fire needs a spark and Princip was that spark. Was he "lucky" to get the kill? Maybe, but he is the one who did it. Was Booth lucky? Was Oswald lucky? Maybe, but their actions caused much aftermath. Same with Princip. Saying war was going to be inevitable is not accurate at all. Tensions may have been high but war was not imminent. Every war as a catalyst, a spark, a reason for doing so. Before Princip, what was that spark, the catalyst, the reason?

15 million people are assumed dead due to WWI. 60 million are assumed dead from WWII. Those numbers can be attributed to Princip. If there is a "family tree" in all of this, Princip is the common ancestor. Everything can lead back to him, his action, the other six inactions, and the one bullet (two if you count the wife).

If the plot to kill Ferdinand does not succeed, who knows where the world would be. But, since it did succeed, WWI happened, the Treaty of Versailles happens, the rise of Hitler happens, the Cold War begins. Why did this happen? All because of one bullet from Princip. He changed history and is responsible for ~75 million deaths at the hand of killing two people. Did he intend for all of that to happen? Probably not, but it did and he was responsible for it.

This pick, I will agree with you, is to start debate, but I have not been one in this thread, yet. Now, Mary as a celebrity... I am thinking disco balls, bell bottoms, and pot. I think she would have fit in that scene.

That is an exceptionally long stretch. I mean, while you're at it why not give him all the deaths from the proxy cold wars and add in the oppression of Communist Europr. After all, it was a result of WWII, which Princip was solely responsible for.

Not to mention the rise of the United States as the world's sole super power. WWII was the catalyst. Which of course led to the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

<_<

Is Larry gone yet?

 

[flysack]

I’ve been wrestling with when to make this pick, as there many voters may not know who he is and others may discount the reasons that scholars of world religions hold him in such high esteem. Heading into the back stretch of the draft seems like a good time. Depending on how far one wants to take the argument of the influence his religion exerted on Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism, you could make a case for him to be the #1 religious figure in World history. I wouldn’t take it that far, but I do place him just behind the big three founders and ahead of the mythical figures being drafted as well as the exponents who helped refine and spread those faiths. The two most important influences of Zoroastrian beliefs are an advancement of the Monotheistic belief structure, and the concept of dualism that is at the core of the religions that followed.

Zarathushtra (Zoroaster) – Religious Figure

Zoroastrianism (IPA: /ˌzɔroʊˈæstriəˌnɪzəm/) is the religion and philosophy based on the teachings ascribed to the prophet Zoroaster, after whom the religion is named. The term Zoroastrianism is, in general usage, essentially synonymous with Mazdaism, i.e. the worship of Ahura Mazda, exalted by Zoroaster as the supreme divine authority.

Zoroastrianism is uniquely important in the history of religion because of its possible formative links to both Western and Eastern religious traditions.[1] In the opinion of Mary Boyce, as "the oldest of the revealed credal religions", Zoroastrianism "probably had more influence on mankind directly or indirectly than any other faith".[2][3]

I don’t have time to write more now but will try to expand later.

AOD I continue to be impressed by your draft. STRONG choice. Zoroastrianism is the oldest living religion. I met a Zoroastrian once. He was a doctor living in exile in the U.S. because of the Islamic fundamentalist take over of Iran. He adamantly refused to be called an Iranian, and not just because he was afraid of American reactions - he thought of himself as a Persian. It was crucial to his sense of identity as a Zoroastrian and cultured man. Interesting guy. Very intelligent, well read, and compassionate. He briefly dated my mother and things got serious until he admitted he was having an affair with a married woman because her husband was an invalid. Apparently the invalid knew. The doctor liked my mother a lot, but said he wouldn't break off the relationship with the married woman because to do so "wouldn't be compassionate of him." She had no other outlet for her desires, and he was afraid she'd turn to something sleazy. I always thought he was very kind for admitting the affair to my mother, but at the same time thought it silly for him to insist that he be allowed to shag this woman on the side. Mom dumped him. It was an amicable parting. He continued to be my personal physician for years. We'd have appointments where we would debate philosophy and forget all about the actual check up. Never billed me once. Even when I showed up with a wicked case of the clap after an all night hash/shroom party with a couple dancers from NYC (one of my fondest sexual memories). The Zoroastrian doctor gave me a script for some penicillin pills, and told me to make sure my rubber suit didn't break next time. So I suppose I should compliment the guy who drafted the guy who invented penicillin too. These are the kind of "write-ups" you get from me after a night of insomnia. <_<

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Suleiman the Magnificent, Leader, Ottoman Empire

I very nearly picked Suleiman with that last pick just to spite someone counting on him continuing to hang around. Really good value at this stage.

 

[FUBAR]

Suleiman the Magnificent, Leader, Ottoman Empire

I very nearly picked Suleiman with that last pick just to spite someone counting on him continuing to hang around. Really good value at this stage.

Thank you. <_< with Mohammad and Suleiman, is it obvious I spent some time in Iraq recently?

 

[flysack]

Also Kafka is indeed my #2 novelist/short story writer.

I'm not going to write anything thorough about it though. After all the literature arguments I've had in this thread, it seems like a waste of time.

So briefly -

Kafka was the most innovative novelist/short story writer out there. Nobody did it like Kafka before him, and many of the very best writers have incorporated his techniques since. The Judgment is the best short story I've ever read, and The Trial is one of the top 5 novels ever written. It's so good, it's been universally hailed it as a marvel despite the fact that Kafka never even finished it. It's 9/10ths done (with a final chapter though).

Both the greatest living Czech writer (living in France) and one of the greatest contemporary Spanish writers (who just died) hailed Kafka as the greatest German writer ever, even better than the man others think of as better. I obviously agree.

ADDED:

I also believe Ozy said he wasn't German.

When you speak of literature, you speak in terms of language, not nationality. Kafka wrote in German, hence he is a German writer.

He was also Jewish before he was a Czech.

 

[timschochet]

Moving on to Princip. His selection is problematic at best, unless you believe that the assassination of the Archduke was in itself evil- I don't. Ferdinand was an idiot, but he represented something much worse to the Serbs, and this was an act of revolution. Whether or not assassination is itself an immoral act is a whole other question; no need to debate it here.

The problem is that Mario doesn't make any claim about the evil nature of an assassination; his whole argument is that this particular assassination caused the onslaught of WWI, and the death of millions. And the problem with this argument is, we can safely assume that such was not Princip's intent. And there it stops for me. I don't need to know whether or not other factors might have caused World War I, though I suspect they did; that part is irrelevant. The most important thing that matters to me in terms of evaluating villainy is intent to do or cause evil. Unless Princip knowingly plotted the death of millions, it really shouldn't matter what the consequences of his action was, however terrible.

As an analogy, there was a Jew named Hershel Grynspan who, in protest against the Nazi persecution of his family, assassinated a German diplomat in 1938. This act resulted in the Night of Broken Glass, or Kristallnacht, an infamous progrom against the Jews, which really marks the beginning of the Holocaust. Are we therefore to assume that Grynspan is responsible for the atrocities of the Kristallnacht? Another example- an unknown Chinese assassin fired a rifle at a Japanese soldier in Nanking in 1937 after that city was occuppied. The Japanese authorities were thereafter determined to teach the Chinese "a lesson in dicipline", and they went on a rampage, killing and raping at whim, causing one of the great crimes of the 20th century. Is this what the Chinese assasin had in mind?

The answer to both these questions, and to the question of Princip, is that none of these assasins had any inkling of the damage sparked by their actions. It's ridiculous to blame them for it. They are simply unfortunate players in history. In conclusion:

1. A villain should, by definition, be someone who commits an evil act.

2. For an act to be evil, it must be committed knowingly. Otherwise, we can assign no moral value to it's having taken place.

3. Therefore, in the matter of Princip, we can only evaluate him on the assassination of the Archduke, not on the unintended consequences of that act.

4. IMO, based on this, Princip becomes probably the weakest villain taken in this draft.

I think that's probably accurate. It doesn't quite square with what your were saying about Jesus Christ causing all those deaths, but I can't remember if you were arguing for or against in that instance (and I'm too lazy to look it up). It may not square with what you were saying about Martin Luther. Yes, it's true that he was anti-Jew (not an uncommon view in the zeitgeist), but it is also true that at the time of Christ, the Jews were anti everyone not a Jew.

My point about Jesus was a refutation of Larry's argument that so many people had been influenced by his "teachings"- I said if so, they certainly did not act upon those influences. Jesus Christ himself did not cause any deaths, nor do I believe he should be held responsible for any acts committed in his name. As far as Luther goes, different story. As I wrote before, it is not his anti-Semitism but his actions which deserve condemnation. Luther with full intent and knowledge caused the persecution of Jews in Central Europe, had them herded into ghettoes, forced them to wear Stars of David, had restrictive business laws passed against them. He directly caused this misery, by having his book On the Jews And Their Lies enforced while he was still alive. Therefore he is absolutely responsible.

Your last comment (bolded) makes no sense to me in terms of this discussion. I don't even know if it's true. In any case, I don't believe in collective responsibilty.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Moving on to Princip. His selection is problematic at best, unless you believe that the assassination of the Archduke was in itself evil- I don't. Ferdinand was an idiot, but he represented something much worse to the Serbs, and this was an act of revolution. Whether or not assassination is itself an immoral act is a whole other question; no need to debate it here.

The problem is that Mario doesn't make any claim about the evil nature of an assassination; his whole argument is that this particular assassination caused the onslaught of WWI, and the death of millions. And the problem with this argument is, we can safely assume that such was not Princip's intent. And there it stops for me. I don't need to know whether or not other factors might have caused World War I, though I suspect they did; that part is irrelevant. The most important thing that matters to me in terms of evaluating villainy is intent to do or cause evil. Unless Princip knowingly plotted the death of millions, it really shouldn't matter what the consequences of his action was, however terrible.

As an analogy, there was a Jew named Hershel Grynspan who, in protest against the Nazi persecution of his family, assassinated a German diplomat in 1938. This act resulted in the Night of Broken Glass, or Kristallnacht, an infamous progrom against the Jews, which really marks the beginning of the Holocaust. Are we therefore to assume that Grynspan is responsible for the atrocities of the Kristallnacht? Another example- an unknown Chinese assassin fired a rifle at a Japanese soldier in Nanking in 1937 after that city was occuppied. The Japanese authorities were thereafter determined to teach the Chinese "a lesson in dicipline", and they went on a rampage, killing and raping at whim, causing one of the great crimes of the 20th century. Is this what the Chinese assasin had in mind?

The answer to both these questions, and to the question of Princip, is that none of these assasins had any inkling of the damage sparked by their actions. It's ridiculous to blame them for it. They are simply unfortunate players in history. In conclusion:

1. A villain should, by definition, be someone who commits an evil act.

2. For an act to be evil, it must be committed knowingly. Otherwise, we can assign no moral value to it's having taken place.

3. Therefore, in the matter of Princip, we can only evaluate him on the assassination of the Archduke, not on the unintended consequences of that act.

4. IMO, based on this, Princip becomes probably the weakest villain taken in this draft.

I think that's probably accurate. It doesn't quite square with what your were saying about Jesus Christ causing all those deaths, but I can't remember if you were arguing for or against in that instance (and I'm too lazy to look it up). It may not square with what you were saying about Martin Luther. Yes, it's true that he was anti-Jew (not an uncommon view in the zeitgeist), but it is also true that at the time of Christ, the Jews were anti everyone not a Jew.

My point about Jesus was a refutation of Larry's argument that so many people had been influenced by his "teachings"- I said if so, they certainly did not act upon those influences. Jesus Christ himself did not cause any deaths, nor do I believe he should be held responsible for any acts committed in his name. As far as Luther goes, different story. As I wrote before, it is not his anti-Semitism but his actions which deserve condemnation. Luther with full intent and knowledge caused the persecution of Jews in Central Europe, had them herded into ghettoes, forced them to wear Stars of David, had restrictive business laws passed against them. He directly caused this misery, by having his book On the Jews And Their Lies enforced while he was still alive. Therefore he is absolutely responsible.

Your last comment (bolded) makes no sense to me in terms of this discussion. I don't even know if it's true. In any case, I don't believe in collective responsibilty.

really?you know... you'd think since you know so much about Jewish persecution, you'd actually know a little bit about Jewish history and stuff...

 

[timschochet]

I’ve been wrestling with when to make this pick, as there many voters may not know who he is and others may discount the reasons that scholars of world religions hold him in such high esteem. Heading into the back stretch of the draft seems like a good time. Depending on how far one wants to take the argument of the influence his religion exerted on Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism, you could make a case for him to be the #1 religious figure in World history. I wouldn’t take it that far, but I do place him just behind the big three founders and ahead of the mythical figures being drafted as well as the exponents who helped refine and spread those faiths. The two most important influences of Zoroastrian beliefs are an advancement of the Monotheistic belief structure, and the concept of dualism that is at the core of the religions that followed.

Zarathushtra (Zoroaster) – Religious Figure

Zoroastrianism (IPA: /ˌzɔroʊˈæstriəˌnɪzəm/) is the religion and philosophy based on the teachings ascribed to the prophet Zoroaster, after whom the religion is named. The term Zoroastrianism is, in general usage, essentially synonymous with Mazdaism, i.e. the worship of Ahura Mazda, exalted by Zoroaster as the supreme divine authority.

Zoroastrianism is uniquely important in the history of religion because of its possible formative links to both Western and Eastern religious traditions.[1] In the opinion of Mary Boyce, as "the oldest of the revealed credal religions", Zoroastrianism "probably had more influence on mankind directly or indirectly than any other faith".[2][3]

I don’t have time to write more now but will try to expand later.

AOD I continue to be impressed by your draft. STRONG choice. Zoroastrianism is the oldest living religion. I met a Zoroastrian once. He was a doctor living in exile in the U.S. because of the Islamic fundamentalist take over of Iran. He adamantly refused to be called an Iranian, and not just because he was afraid of American reactions - he thought of himself as a Persian. It was crucial to his sense of identity as a Zoroastrian and cultured man. Interesting guy. Very intelligent, well read, and compassionate. He briefly dated my mother and things got serious until he admitted he was having an affair with a married woman because her husband was an invalid. Apparently the invalid knew. The doctor liked my mother a lot, but said he wouldn't break off the relationship with the married woman because to do so "wouldn't be compassionate of him." She had no other outlet for her desires, and he was afraid she'd turn to something sleazy. I always thought he was very kind for admitting the affair to my mother, but at the same time thought it silly for him to insist that he be allowed to shag this woman on the side. Mom dumped him. It was an amicable parting. He continued to be my personal physician for years. We'd have appointments where we would debate philosophy and forget all about the actual check up. Never billed me once. Even when I showed up with a wicked case of the clap after an all night hash/shroom party with a couple dancers from NYC (one of my fondest sexual memories). The Zoroastrian doctor gave me a script for some penicillin pills, and told me to make sure my rubber suit didn't break next time. So I suppose I should compliment the guy who drafted the guy who invented penicillin too. These are the kind of "write-ups" you get from me after a night of insomnia.

Best writeup yet! Outstanding analysis, Flysack!

 

[timschochet]

really?

you know... you'd think since you know so much about Jewish persecution, you'd actually know a little bit about Jewish history and stuff...

Is this an attempted snipe at me, Larry? I don't claim to know things I don't know about. My knowledge about Jewish persecution and history is good, I would say, though certainly not expert, and it is much more extensive when discussing the last five or six hundred years. Prior to around 1400, I haven't studied it in detail, simply based on level of interest. This is why I always ask you and other Christians here about Biblical and Biblical era questions- because I often don't know the answers, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.Very shortly, I'm about to read James Michener's novel, The Source which focuses on Jewish history from it's Book of Exodus era beginnings to the modern day. In the past, I've always found this writer to be historically very informative; I've learned quite a lot from his books about Hawaii, South Africa, and the Chesapeake River. Although written as fiction, I understand he is usually very accurate. So I hope to be better informed on these issues in these futures.

 

[FUBAR]

really?

you know... you'd think since you know so much about Jewish persecution, you'd actually know a little bit about Jewish history and stuff...

Is this an attempted snipe at me, Larry? I don't claim to know things I don't know about. My knowledge about Jewish persecution and history is good, I would say, though certainly not expert, and it is much more extensive when discussing the last five or six hundred years. Prior to around 1400, I haven't studied it in detail, simply based on level of interest. This is why I always ask you and other Christians here about Biblical and Biblical era questions- because I often don't know the answers, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.Very shortly, I'm about to read James Michener's novel, The Source which focuses on Jewish history from it's Book of Exodus era beginnings to the modern day. In the past, I've always found this writer to be historically very informative; I've learned quite a lot from his books about Hawaii, South Africa, and the Chesapeake River. Although written as fiction, I understand he is usually very accurate. So I hope to be better informed on these issues in these futures.

watch the spotlighting!

 

[Mario Kart]

Wow, not only did you go to mass and drink the whole chalice but you had peyote and cilocybin mushroom pizza afterwards. The assassination very literally would've happened if he didn't do it, there was a huge plot in motion and he was one of seven men in position to try. That he got the kill is a matter of luck. I am not sure what the death toll of WWI was but can it top the 6 miilion Jews alone, much less the war casualties of the war Hitler started? And before you go into WWII being a product of the war Princip "started", I lay the blame squarely on the Treaty of Versaille for completely crippling Germany to the point that they were easily manipulated into the bloody World War. Does Princip stand out against Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot, who had prisoners dig their own mass graves before clubbing them to death to save bullets? Mengele who personally tortured and killed thousands (including thousands of children) by disgusting and inhumanly grotesque experiments? Who boiled, burned, crushed, amputated, maimed, infected and in some cases even sewed together twins, as well as dissected many while still alive, all just to see how long a person could live under those conditions. You think the lucky shooter of seven assassins "easily" outranks these guys as villains? Really?

Where there is smoke there is not always fire. Every fire needs a spark and Princip was that spark. Was he "lucky" to get the kill? Maybe, but he is the one who did it. Was Booth lucky? Was Oswald lucky? Maybe, but their actions caused much aftermath. Same with Princip. Saying war was going to be inevitable is not accurate at all. Tensions may have been high but war was not imminent. Every war as a catalyst, a spark, a reason for doing so. Before Princip, what was that spark, the catalyst, the reason?

15 million people are assumed dead due to WWI. 60 million are assumed dead from WWII. Those numbers can be attributed to Princip. If there is a "family tree" in all of this, Princip is the common ancestor. Everything can lead back to him, his action, the other six inactions, and the one bullet (two if you count the wife).

If the plot to kill Ferdinand does not succeed, who knows where the world would be. But, since it did succeed, WWI happened, the Treaty of Versailles happens, the rise of Hitler happens, the Cold War begins. Why did this happen? All because of one bullet from Princip. He changed history and is responsible for ~75 million deaths at the hand of killing two people. Did he intend for all of that to happen? Probably not, but it did and he was responsible for it.

This pick, I will agree with you, is to start debate, but I have not been one in this thread, yet. Now, Mary as a celebrity... I am thinking disco balls, bell bottoms, and pot. I think she would have fit in that scene.

That is an exceptionally long stretch. I mean, while you're at it why not give him all the deaths from the proxy cold wars and add in the oppression of Communist Europr. After all, it was a result of WWII, which Princip was solely responsible for.

The act of assassination is evil. The aftermath, which was known, was evil. The act was done with the intention to start a war. The assassination was not a simple "Ha Ha" moment and that would be that. If war was inevitable, which in itself is debatable, the spark that caused the fire is an act of a villain because they knew the outcome was to be war. The act and outcome were known. Did they know the extent of the outcome, maybe, which makes it more evil for that person to do. Princip changed the world, that is undeniable, Princip help cause, directly or indirectly, the future deaths of ~75 million people, Princip helped create a Nazi empire and Princip helped destroy the Austria-Hungary and Ottoman empires. The one bullet changed the course of the future and changed it for millions around the world.

 

[larry_boy_44]

really?

you know... you'd think since you know so much about Jewish persecution, you'd actually know a little bit about Jewish history and stuff...

Is this an attempted snipe at me, Larry? I don't claim to know things I don't know about. My knowledge about Jewish persecution and history is good, I would say, though certainly not expert, and it is much more extensive when discussing the last five or six hundred years. Prior to around 1400, I haven't studied it in detail, simply based on level of interest. This is why I always ask you and other Christians here about Biblical and Biblical era questions- because I often don't know the answers, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.Very shortly, I'm about to read James Michener's novel, The Source which focuses on Jewish history from it's Book of Exodus era beginnings to the modern day. In the past, I've always found this writer to be historically very informative; I've learned quite a lot from his books about Hawaii, South Africa, and the Chesapeake River. Although written as fiction, I understand he is usually very accurate. So I hope to be better informed on these issues in these futures.

It honestly wasn't meant as a snipe or badly (although reading it now I see how it probably seemed that way)...My point was more of surprise that with all that you seem to know about who was and wasn't an anti-semite and why that you, by how you responded to what I what I was responding to, didn't seem to know a lot about Jewish history, rather just the history of Jewish persecution...



not a snipe or anything like that... Just interesting that you know all about anyone who's persecuted Jews in the last 600 years, but not a ton about Jews or Judaism on the whole it seems...

 

[mad sweeney]

The act of assassination is evil. The aftermath, which was known, was evil. The act was done with the intention to start a war. The assassination was not a simple "Ha Ha" moment and that would be that. If war was inevitable, which in itself is debatable, the spark that caused the fire is an act of a villain because they knew the outcome was to be war.

The act and outcome were known. Did they know the extent of the outcome, maybe, which makes it more evil for that person to do. Princip changed the world, that is undeniable, Princip help cause, directly or indirectly, the future deaths of ~75 million people, Princip helped create a Nazi empire and Princip helped destroy the Austria-Hungary and Ottoman empires. The one bullet changed the course of the future and changed it for millions around the world.

:rofl: Major, major stretch again. Wiki lists 16 people in league with Princip in the assassination, I would think the planner/organizer/author of the idea to kill FF had more culpability than that of a mere footsoldier. Does one guy out of 16 get the credit as #1 villain because he got lucky? Sixteen other guys were all in league to commit this act and the one guy that got lucky gets credit for 2 World Wars?! If you're going to go that far in assigning blame on one man for not just one but two world wars then let's at least give it to the right one. How about the driver, who took a wrong turn thus enabling Princip to get his shot, or Princip's father for conceiving him. Wait, the maker of the automobile Ferdinand was in needs some credit, as should the gunmaker and thus in turn the creator of gunpowder. All of thses people directly or indirectly caused WWI and WWII.

Vienna's initial reaction to the assassination was not noticed.[13] Franz Ferdinand was not popular at court or among the people, and his death posed no threat to the continuation of the Habsburg dynasty. After all, two other monarchs had already been assassinated by members of the Black Hand:

The assassinations, along with the arms race, nationalism, imperialism, militarism, and the alliance system all contributed to the beginning of World War I, which began less than two months after Franz Ferdinand's death, with Austria-Hungary's declaration of war against Serbia.[11]

Frederick Morton argues the assassination was the trigger for a sociological phenomenon that had been brewing for decades, perhaps since the French Revolution. Beneath Europe's apparent prosperity lay a population seething with discontent. With rising productivity many European workers felt the fruits of their labors were unfairly going to new capitalists and old aristocracy. People whose families had lived off the land for generations felt their agrarian way of life being threatened by industrialization. Many seemed to share Hitler's view that war would remove barriers between men and make them brothers in arms. According to Morton, once it became clear that war was imminent, many socialists and even pacifists abandoned their antiwar stance and joined the conflict with enthusiasm. It may be that the Great War was an event whose time had come whether Franz Ferdinand was killed or not.

I think we need to lay the blame for both WWs at the feet of who is ultimately responsible, the guys who started the French Revolution. They clearly led directly to Hitler and Stalin.

 

[timschochet]

really?

you know... you'd think since you know so much about Jewish persecution, you'd actually know a little bit about Jewish history and stuff...

Is this an attempted snipe at me, Larry? I don't claim to know things I don't know about. My knowledge about Jewish persecution and history is good, I would say, though certainly not expert, and it is much more extensive when discussing the last five or six hundred years. Prior to around 1400, I haven't studied it in detail, simply based on level of interest. This is why I always ask you and other Christians here about Biblical and Biblical era questions- because I often don't know the answers, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.Very shortly, I'm about to read James Michener's novel, The Source which focuses on Jewish history from it's Book of Exodus era beginnings to the modern day. In the past, I've always found this writer to be historically very informative; I've learned quite a lot from his books about Hawaii, South Africa, and the Chesapeake River. Although written as fiction, I understand he is usually very accurate. So I hope to be better informed on these issues in these futures.

It honestly wasn't meant as a snipe or badly (although reading it now I see how it probably seemed that way)...My point was more of surprise that with all that you seem to know about who was and wasn't an anti-semite and why that you, by how you responded to what I what I was responding to, didn't seem to know a lot about Jewish history, rather just the history of Jewish persecution...



not a snipe or anything like that... Just interesting that you know all about anyone who's persecuted Jews in the last 600 years, but not a ton about Jews or Judaism on the whole it seems...

It's because I regard Jews as a race and culture more than a religion. There is very little connection between the Jews of the last 400-500 years and the ancient Hebrews. The Ashkhenazi Jews of Central and Eastern Europe arrived on the Rhine in the 11th century or so- at that time, they represented 3% of the Jews worldwide. Today, it's about 80%. During the last 900 years, the culture that has surrounded these Jews, partly due to anti-Semitism, partly due to European culture in general, has informed their behavior to a much greater extent than any Biblical beliefs. My Jewish ancestors referred to themselves as Yiddishkeit meaning Jews, but really meaning, those who speak Yiddish. Yiddish is a mixture of German and Central European languages, specific to Jews but with no relation to the ancient Hebrews.

 

[Mario Kart]

The act of assassination is evil. The aftermath, which was known, was evil. The act was done with the intention to start a war. The assassination was not a simple "Ha Ha" moment and that would be that. If war was inevitable, which in itself is debatable, the spark that caused the fire is an act of a villain because they knew the outcome was to be war. The act and outcome were known. Did they know the extent of the outcome, maybe, which makes it more evil for that person to do. Princip changed the world, that is undeniable, Princip help cause, directly or indirectly, the future deaths of ~75 million people, Princip helped create a Nazi empire and Princip helped destroy the Austria-Hungary and Ottoman empires. The one bullet changed the course of the future and changed it for millions around the world.

:rofl: Major, major stretch again. Wiki lists 16 people in league with Princip in the assassination, I would think the planner/organizer/author of the idea to kill FF had more culpability than that of a mere footsoldier. Does one guy out of 16 get the credit as #1 villain because he got lucky? Sixteen other guys were all in league to commit this act and the one guy that got lucky gets credit for 2 World Wars?! If you're going to go that far in assigning blame on one man for not just one but two world wars then let's at least give it to the right one. How about the driver, who took a wrong turn thus enabling Princip to get his shot, or Princip's father for conceiving him. Wait, the maker of the automobile Ferdinand was in needs some credit, as should the gunmaker and thus in turn the creator of gunpowder. All of thses people directly or indirectly caused WWI and WWII.

It had to start somewhere and the countries needed motivation to go to war. Princip gave them that motivation. There may have been others involved but Princip's bullet was the one that sparked the fire. There have been claims of other assassins that have caused "trouble" for a larger population that were "unintended" by the assassin but that one bullet did cause them as well. Perception is key. All assassins kill more than one person and effect many more than one person... as did Princip's. I cannot elaborate due to spot lighting but one bullet does a lot of damage. Princip's bullet did plenty of damage.

 

[timschochet]

Mario, it was not his intent to cause World War I and the death of millions. How then is he a villain?

 

[thatguy]

Love the Zoroaster pick... I was hoping he'd fall a bit farther. Nice pick and snipe AOD.

 

[Mario Kart]

Mario, it was not his intent to cause World War I and the death of millions. How then is he a villain?

Some of the intent was to start a war. The magnitude of said war was probably not imagined but that does not discount the effects of the one bullet. Princip, probably, did not imagine the two WW's his bullet was going to cause but that does not take away from the effect of said bullet.Other assassins don't know the end result of their behavior but the fear of the unknown is more powerful than knowing what will happen. I doubt Hitler rose up to power in the early 30's with the full expectation that he would one day give orders to open up concentration camps. He might have imagined it but probably did not see it coming to fruition. Same with Princip. His group and him probably foresaw a war coming but never imagined the outcome of it. A villain's acts, while shameful and cause hurt for only a few immediately, cause much more collateral damage than can be measured. Princip caused much more collateral damage than anyone in human history, that cannot be denied. A true act of a villain is the damage they do not predict happening.

 

[mad sweeney]

Mario, it was not his intent to cause World War I and the death of millions. How then is he a villain?

Not only that, but how is he "easily" the objective #1 villain of all time? Sure, he helped precipitate the start of WWI, but giving him credit for all the deaths of WWI is absurd. The "World" did not go to war because Franz was killed. The causal link to WWII is even more threadbare. The writers of the ToV are infinitely more culpable for WWII than one of the many causes of WWI was.For the record I would put him at 2nd to last right now. Judas is still the worst villain, didn't kill anyone and was as responsible in making Christianity what it is today as anyone else. No crucifixion, no Christianity. Larry has argued that the good Luther did outweighs the anti Semitic bad parts, well I would think creating Christianity ought to easily erase any bad deed that Jesus/God was actually counting on happening.

 

[mad sweeney]

Mario, it was not his intent to cause World War I and the death of millions. How then is he a villain?

Some of the intent was to start a war. The magnitude of said war was probably not imagined but that does not discount the effects of the one bullet. Princip, probably, did not imagine the two WW's his bullet was going to cause but that does not take away from the effect of said bullet.Other assassins don't know the end result of their behavior but the fear of the unknown is more powerful than knowing what will happen. I doubt Hitler rose up to power in the early 30's with the full expectation that he would one day give orders to open up concentration camps. He might have imagined it but probably did not see it coming to fruition. Same with Princip. His group and him probably foresaw a war coming but never imagined the outcome of it.

A villain's acts, while shameful and cause hurt for only a few immediately, cause much more collateral damage than can be measured. Princip caused much more collateral damage than anyone in human history, that cannot be denied. A true act of a villain is the damage they do not predict happening.

It can and I do, vehemently. The writers of the Treaty of Versaille fit your description far, far more than Princip does. It's a joke to attribute WWII to him.

 

[Mister CIA]

I’ve been wrestling with when to make this pick, as there many voters may not know who he is and others may discount the reasons that scholars of world religions hold him in such high esteem. Heading into the back stretch of the draft seems like a good time. Depending on how far one wants to take the argument of the influence his religion exerted on Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism, you could make a case for him to be the #1 religious figure in World history. I wouldn’t take it that far, but I do place him just behind the big three founders and ahead of the mythical figures being drafted as well as the exponents who helped refine and spread those faiths. The two most important influences of Zoroastrian beliefs are an advancement of the Monotheistic belief structure, and the concept of dualism that is at the core of the religions that followed.

Zarathushtra (Zoroaster) – Religious Figure

Zoroastrianism (IPA: /ˌzɔroʊˈæstriəˌnɪzəm/) is the religion and philosophy based on the teachings ascribed to the prophet Zoroaster, after whom the religion is named. The term Zoroastrianism is, in general usage, essentially synonymous with Mazdaism, i.e. the worship of Ahura Mazda, exalted by Zoroaster as the supreme divine authority.

Zoroastrianism is uniquely important in the history of religion because of its possible formative links to both Western and Eastern religious traditions.[1] In the opinion of Mary Boyce, as "the oldest of the revealed credal religions", Zoroastrianism "probably had more influence on mankind directly or indirectly than any other faith".[2][3]

I don’t have time to write more now but will try to expand later.

Was hoping to get this as a wildcard after taking care of some roster needs.

 

[timschochet]

Mario, it was not his intent to cause World War I and the death of millions. How then is he a villain?

Some of the intent was to start a war. The magnitude of said war was probably not imagined but that does not discount the effects of the one bullet. Princip, probably, did not imagine the two WW's his bullet was going to cause but that does not take away from the effect of said bullet.Other assassins don't know the end result of their behavior but the fear of the unknown is more powerful than knowing what will happen. I doubt Hitler rose up to power in the early 30's with the full expectation that he would one day give orders to open up concentration camps. He might have imagined it but probably did not see it coming to fruition. Same with Princip. His group and him probably foresaw a war coming but never imagined the outcome of it.

A villain's acts, while shameful and cause hurt for only a few immediately, cause much more collateral damage than can be measured. Princip caused much more collateral damage than anyone in human history, that cannot be denied. A true act of a villain is the damage they do not predict happening.

This is a terrible analogy, Mario. It doesn't matter whether Hitler imagined the death camps or not; when he was in power, he did them. He is responsible for this crime. Princip is not responsible for anything but the death of the Archduke Ferdinand. Are you familiar with chaos theory? Besides the death of the archduke, there are a billion other factors that caused WWI and WWII- far too many to even list the important ones here.You remind me of one of those sports fans who blames a loss on one bad referee call- completely ignoring every other play that occurred in the game. And to make things worse, they not blame the ref, but they always imply the mistake was deliberate, as if the ref wanted one team to win. The logic of these sorts of fans and your logic in selecting Princip is the same.

 

[timschochet]

It can and I do, vehemently. The writers of the Treaty of Versaille fit your description far, far more than Princip does. It's a joke to attribute WWII to him.

It's a joke to attribute WWII to them, either, despite the fact that many histories do. I keep going back to intent, because it is of vital importance when discussing this category, IMO. As Churchill said in his speech following the death of one of the great appeasers:It fell to XXXXXXXXXXXXX in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man. But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? What were these wishes in which he was frustrated? What was that faith that was abused? They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart-the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity or clamour. Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that XXXXXXXX acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged. This alone will stand him in good stead as far as what is called the verdict of history is concerned.

This was a very important speech in regards to this topic. It was made in September of 1940, while England was in it's greatest peril. The person that Churchill refers to here was more responsible for causing that peril through errors and misjudgments than any man other than Hitler himself. Yet Churchill rightfully absolves this man because there was no intent to carry out evil. Princip is a terrible draft choice and deserves to be at the bottom of the villain list, IMO.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

Handel is another good pick, and it only continues to illustrate my point about Irving Berlin. It's not a matter of then vs. now, it's a matter of musical sophistication. All of us like Irving Berlin, (or should like him) but take a look at the list of classical composers chosen so far in this draft: which one would you slot below Berlin? Answer: none of them. This is why I'm pretty sure that, unless someone drafts a composer of popular songs similar to Berlin, he's going to end up #20 in this draft.

Classical music is more sophisicated????You really are a snob.Therefore if someone were to put the Beatles, Strolling Bones (Jagger/Richards) or anyone else born in the last 75 years into the composer category it deosn't hold a candle to 125 classical composers you care to name?I've heard shocking Classical music in my time, I've heard stuff that moves me and I've heard lots I'm indifferent to.To me it's all music and to call a great composer like Irving Berlin vastly inferior to some guy who composed nothing but long boring symphonys (some have been drafted) is an insult.It's class system at its worstie Classical = Supper Upper Elite ClassEveryone else = PlebUnite the workers!!

 

[mad sweeney]

It can and I do, vehemently. The writers of the Treaty of Versaille fit your description far, far more than Princip does. It's a joke to attribute WWII to him.

It's a joke to attribute WWII to them, either, despite the fact that many histories do. I keep going back to intent, because it is of vital importance when discussing this category, IMO. As Churchill said in his speech following the death of one of the great appeasers:It fell to XXXXXXXXXXXXX in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man. But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? What were these wishes in which he was frustrated? What was that faith that was abused? They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart-the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity or clamour. Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that XXXXXXXX acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged. This alone will stand him in good stead as far as what is called the verdict of history is concerned.

This was a very important speech in regards to this topic. It was made in September of 1940, while England was in it's greatest peril. The person that Churchill refers to here was more responsible for causing that peril through errors and misjudgments than any man other than Hitler himself. Yet Churchill rightfully absolves this man because there was no intent to carry out evil. Princip is a terrible draft choice and deserves to be at the bottom of the villain list, IMO.

I'm only saying that in conjunction with MK's "rationale" behind the Princip pick. The ToV was fuel for the fire but what happened after it lay on far more shoulders than just the treaty makers.

 

[timschochet]

Handel is another good pick, and it only continues to illustrate my point about Irving Berlin. It's not a matter of then vs. now, it's a matter of musical sophistication. All of us like Irving Berlin, (or should like him) but take a look at the list of classical composers chosen so far in this draft: which one would you slot below Berlin? Answer: none of them. This is why I'm pretty sure that, unless someone drafts a composer of popular songs similar to Berlin, he's going to end up #20 in this draft.

Classical music is more sophisicated????You really are a snob.

Therefore if someone were to put the Beatles, Strolling Bones (Jagger/Richards) or anyone else born in the last 75 years into the composer category it deosn't hold a candle to 125 classical composers you care to name?

I've heard shocking Classical music in my time, I've heard stuff that moves me and I've heard lots I'm indifferent to.

To me it's all music and to call a great composer like Irving Berlin vastly inferior to some guy who composed nothing but long boring symphonys (some have been drafted) is an insult.

It's class system at its worst

ie Classical = Supper Upper Elite Class

Everyone else = Pleb

Unite the workers!!

You're beginning to confuse yourself with DC Thunder.All right JML, here's what I want to know: since you don't think that Berlin should be at the bottom of the list, tell me which of the other composers selected you think should be beneath Berlin, and I challenge you to make a convincing argument to back it up. I'm betting you can't.

 

[timschochet]

It can and I do, vehemently. The writers of the Treaty of Versaille fit your description far, far more than Princip does. It's a joke to attribute WWII to him.

It's a joke to attribute WWII to them, either, despite the fact that many histories do. I keep going back to intent, because it is of vital importance when discussing this category, IMO. As Churchill said in his speech following the death of one of the great appeasers:It fell to XXXXXXXXXXXXX in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man. But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? What were these wishes in which he was frustrated? What was that faith that was abused? They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart-the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace, even at great peril, and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity or clamour. Whatever else history may or may not say about these terrible, tremendous years, we can be sure that XXXXXXXX acted with perfect sincerity according to his lights and strove to the utmost of his capacity and authority, which were powerful, to save the world from the awful, devastating struggle in which we are now engaged. This alone will stand him in good stead as far as what is called the verdict of history is concerned.

This was a very important speech in regards to this topic. It was made in September of 1940, while England was in it's greatest peril. The person that Churchill refers to here was more responsible for causing that peril through errors and misjudgments than any man other than Hitler himself. Yet Churchill rightfully absolves this man because there was no intent to carry out evil. Princip is a terrible draft choice and deserves to be at the bottom of the villain list, IMO.

I'm only saying that in conjunction with MK's "rationale" behind the Princip pick. The ToV was fuel for the fire but what happened after it lay on far more shoulders than just the treaty makers.

I know. I was agreeing with your point.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Suleiman the Magnificent, Leader, Ottoman Empire

I very nearly picked Suleiman with that last pick just to spite someone counting on him continuing to hang around. Really good value at this stage.

Thank you. with Mohammad and Suleiman, is it obvious I spent some time in Iraq recently?

OUSTANDING pick - The Lawgiver was the last of the great sultans; it was downhill for the Ottoman Empire after him. What's fascinating about him is every Sultan before him added laws, none thereafter, e.g., the rule of law was was considered completed by him.

The Suleymanie Mosque, built for Suleyman, describes Suleyman in its inscription as Nashiru kawanin al-Sultaniyye , or "Propagator of the Sultanic Laws." The primacy of Suleyman as a law-giver is at the foundation of his place in Islamic history and world view. It is perhaps important to step back a moment and closely examine this title to fully understand Suleyman's place in history.

The word used for law here, kanun, has a very specific reference. In Islamic tradition, the Shari'ah, or laws originally derived from the Qur'an , are meant to be universally applied across all Islamic states. No Islamic ruler has the power to overturn or replace these laws. So what laws was Suleyman "giving" to the Islamic world? What precisely does kanun refer to since it doesn't refer to the main body of Islamic law, the Shari'ah ?

The kanun refer to situational decisions that are not covered by the Shari'ah . Even though the Shari'ah provides all necessary laws, it's recognized that some situations fall outside their parameters. In Islamic tradition, if a case fell outside the parameters of the Shari'ah , then a judgement or rule in the case could be arrived at through analogy with rules or cases that are covered by the Shari'ah . This method of juridical thinking was only accepted by the most liberal school of Shari'ah , Hanifism, so it is no surprise that Hanifism dominated Ottoman law.

The Ottomans, however, elevated kanun into an entire code of laws independent of the Shari'ah. The first two centuries of Ottoman rule, from 1350 to 1550, saw an explosion of kanun rulings and laws, so that by the beginning of the sixteenth century, the kanun were a complete and independent set of laws that by and large were more important than the Shari'ah . This unique situation was brought about in part because of the unique heritage of the Ottomans. In both Turkish and Mongol traditions, the imperial law, or law pronounced by the monarch, was considered sacred. They even had a special word for it: the Turks called it Türe and the Mongols called it Yasa . In the system of Türe and Yasa , imperial law was regarded as the essential and sacred foundation of the empire. When this tradition collided with the Islamic Shari'ah tradition, a compromised system combining both was formed.

When the Sultanic laws were first collected together, they were divided the kanun into two separate sets or laws. The first set dealt with the organization of government and the military, and the second set dealt with the taxation and treatment of the peasantry. The Ottoman kanun pretty much crystallized into its final form in 1501. Suleyman, for his part, revised the law code, but on the whole the Suleyman code of laws is pretty identical to the 1501 system of laws. However, it was under Suleyman that the laws took their final form; no more revisions were made after his reign. From this point onwards, this code of laws was called, kanun-i 'Osmani , or the "Ottoman laws."

IMO this guy should rate really high as a leader; besides his role as lawgiver:
as a conqueror he made Europe know fear like it had never known of any other Islamic state.
as a builder, he undertook to make Istanbul the center of Islamic civilization, building bridges, mosques, and palaces, that rivaled the greatest building projects of the world in that century
he was was a great cultivator of the arts and is considered one of the great poets of Islam. Under Suleyman, Istanbul became the center of visual art, music, writing, and philosophy in the Islamic world. This cultural flowering during the reign of Suleyman represents the most creative period in Ottoman history; almost all the cultural forms that we associate with the Ottomans date from this time.What more do you want from a leader?

Suleyman in his time was regarded as the most significant ruler in the world, by both Muslims and Europeans. Great value selection.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

10.14 Johann Strauss, II, Composer

At least I've got Berlin beat.

I'd agree with that, but only cause I think Strauss is top 5.I totally forgot about him.

Die Fledermaus, Kaiser-Waltz, Unter Donner und Blitz & of course the Blue Danube all masterpieces

If I remebered Strauss I would have picked him ahead of Simon, but Strauss belongs with Bach, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky & Wagner in my top 5.

 

[BobbyLayne]

I’ve been wrestling with when to make this pick, as there many voters may not know who he is and others may discount the reasons that scholars of world religions hold him in such high esteem. Heading into the back stretch of the draft seems like a good time. Depending on how far one wants to take the argument of the influence his religion exerted on Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism, you could make a case for him to be the #1 religious figure in World history. I wouldn’t take it that far, but I do place him just behind the big three founders and ahead of the mythical figures being drafted as well as the exponents who helped refine and spread those faiths. The two most important influences of Zoroastrian beliefs are an advancement of the Monotheistic belief structure, and the concept of dualism that is at the core of the religions that followed.

Zarathushtra (Zoroaster) – Religious Figure

Zoroastrianism (IPA: /ˌzɔroʊˈæstriəˌnɪzəm/) is the religion and philosophy based on the teachings ascribed to the prophet Zoroaster, after whom the religion is named. The term Zoroastrianism is, in general usage, essentially synonymous with Mazdaism, i.e. the worship of Ahura Mazda, exalted by Zoroaster as the supreme divine authority.

Zoroastrianism is uniquely important in the history of religion because of its possible formative links to both Western and Eastern religious traditions.[1] In the opinion of Mary Boyce, as "the oldest of the revealed credal religions", Zoroastrianism "probably had more influence on mankind directly or indirectly than any other faith".[2][3]

If you observed the contrarian methodology NCC utilized in judging inventions in the G.A.D., and saw his predraft/early draft comments on his criteria for Religious Figures for this draft, I think there is a really good chance this scores well.I think you will get crushed in this category in the popular vote by at least 15 others, but it's a pick your poison deal.

Nice pick.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

I'm on my phone so I can't do a write up, not much introduction should be needed though.

The Rolling Stones- Musical Performers

Good.I was thinking of Jagger/Richards for my Composer, but I thought that only 1 name was allowed for that category and neither was any good without the other.

 

[BobbyLayne]

I'm on my phone so I can't do a write up, not much introduction should be needed though.

The Rolling Stones- Musical Performers

Arseanal, you are really having a fine draft so far.Just remember we said the same thing about Larry for a long time, then the self-destruction started.

Keep it rolling, man, you have a great shot at taking a top 3 seed for sure.

 

[Thorn]

10.14 Johann Strauss, II, Composer

At least I've got Berlin beat.

I'd agree with that, but only cause I think Strauss is top 5.I totally forgot about him.

Die Fledermaus, Kaiser-Waltz, Unter Donner und Blitz & of course the Blue Danube all masterpieces

If I remebered Strauss I would have picked him ahead of Simon, but Strauss belongs with Bach, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky & Wagner in my top 5.

I love it when dart throwing works.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

The act of assassination is evil. The aftermath, which was known, was evil. The act was done with the intention to start a war. The assassination was not a simple "Ha Ha" moment and that would be that. If war was inevitable, which in itself is debatable, the spark that caused the fire is an act of a villain because they knew the outcome was to be war. The act and outcome were known. Did they know the extent of the outcome, maybe, which makes it more evil for that person to do. Princip changed the world, that is undeniable, Princip help cause, directly or indirectly, the future deaths of ~75 million people, Princip helped create a Nazi empire and Princip helped destroy the Austria-Hungary and Ottoman empires. The one bullet changed the course of the future and changed it for millions around the world.

I'm going to draft Peter Princip, not only did he by having sex with Marija Princip create the man who killed 75 million, he trained this monster.It's one thing to commit the act, but to raise and brainwash this murderous monster with his dastardly parenting skills is an act of even more sinister villainy.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I'm on my phone so I can't do a write up, not much introduction should be needed though.

The Rolling Stones- Musical Performers

Arseanal, you are really having a fine draft so far.Just remember we said the same thing about Larry for a long time, then the self-destruction started.

Keep it rolling, man, you have a great shot at taking a top 3 seed for sure.

what self destruction?Every pick I have made has been a great one so far...