What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

World's Greatest Draft (2 Viewers)

Nice pick on Pele. He's a clear cut #1 IMO. World's greatest in its most popular sport and did his best work on the international stage, leading Brazil to 3 World Cup championships.

I don't even know who I'd put at #2.

 
4.03 (63rd pick) - Hannibal - Military

(248-183 or 182 BC) was a Carthaginian military commander and tactician who is popularly credited as one of the most talented commanders in history.

His father was the leading Carthaginian commander during the First Punic War. Hannibal lived during a period of tension in the Mediterranean, when Rome (then the Roman Republic) established its supremacy over other great powers such as Carthage, and the Hellenistic kingdoms of Macedon, Syracuse, and the Seleucid empire. One of his most famous achievements was at the outbreak of the Second Punic War, when he marched an army, which included war elephants, from Iberia over the Pyrenees and the Alps into northern Italy.

His first few years in Italy, he won three dramatic victories at the Battle of Trebia, the Battle of Lake Trasimene and the Battle of Cannae, and won over several Roman allies. The victory at Cannae has often been cited as one of the most perfect battles ever fought, as the army of Carthage decisively defeated a numerically superior army of the Roman Republic. Regarded to this day as one of the greatest tactical feats in military history, it was, in terms of the numbers killed, the second greatest defeat of Rome. After 17 years, a Roman counter-invasion of North Africa forced him to return to Carthage, where he was decisively defeated at the Battle of Zama.

After the war Hannibal successfully ran for the office of suffete. He enacted political and financial reforms to enable the payment of the war indemnity imposed by Rome. However, Hannibal's reforms were unpopular with members of the Carthaginian aristocracy and Rome, and he fled into voluntary exile. During his exile, he lived at the Seleucid court, where he acted as military advisor in a war against Rome. Hannibal fled after the war, making a stop in Armenia. His flight ended in the court of Bithynia, where he achieved an outstanding naval victory against a fleet from Pergamum. He was afterward betrayed to the Romans.

Hannibal would later be considered as one of the greatest generals of antiquity, together with Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and others. Military historians call Hannibal the "father of strategy", because his greatest enemy, Rome, came to adopt elements of his military tactics in its own strategic arsenal. This praise has earned him a strong reputation in the modern world and he was regarded as a "gifted strategist" by other great generals. His life has been the basis for a number of films and documentaries.

He has been attributed with the famous quotation,

"We will either find a way, or make one."

Hannibal crossing the Alps

You want some of that? Bring it on! Give him equal armament, I would put this general up against any military strategist from any period.

Nufced.
Easy top 5 in the military category. Great pick.
Fantastic pick. My #3 military leader, after Genghis Khan and Alexander. His battle at Cannae may well be the greatest victory in history. He was outnumbered by the Romans almost 2-1 (and the Romans were no slouches), and by judicious use of picking the ground, and then using an outward crescent which slowly (and deliberately) retreated in formation, he drew the Romans into a double envelopment where he came close to annihilating them.As distinct from the Mongols and Alexander, who had some superiority in arms or formation compared to their opponents, this was between armies which were similar in arms and formation. Nothing but sheer battlefield brilliance. The Romans studied his tactics, and were eventually able to defeat him. If he had received logistical support from Carthage, there might have been no Roman Empire. But he was unable to take Rome.

His logistical feat of bringing his army from Spain across the Alps is a major accomplishment.

 
Nice pick on Pele. He's a clear cut #1 IMO. World's greatest in its most popular sport and did his best work on the international stage, leading Brazil to 3 World Cup championships. I don't even know who I'd put at #2.
Just wondering if a sport's star could be enough of an all around athlete. Was chatting with another FBG and I think it takes more. Although if that is your criteria then you probably gotta go with Pele(He is soccer personified). If anyone want's some of my thoughts on what I would be looking for in this category I'd be willing to PM cause this is one of the cats that I have been chawing with some others about.
 
I've come to the conclusion that 20 teams in this thing is just too fracking many. It's not that I don't like the discussion in between picks, mind you. That's fun. No, it's waiting like 30 picks to make a move and see player after player come off the board just because tim wanted to be the guy that hosted the longest and most historically entertaining draft on the board. I mean, how' that for ego? He looks like a draft host legend of the :nerd: group amongst us, and those of us trying to draft see pick after pick coming off the board, forcing to say :goodposting: like we are some dumb Wheel of Fortune contestant clapping for the other guy to win all the money and say Gimmie an F real loud to Vanna White.

Yeah, that's what I want to do - clap for the other guy. No, tim, you are an evil Pat Sajack. Spin!

:wall:
I think we'll start to separate the wheat from the chaff in a few rounds. Right now it is pretty frustrating watching people go.
That's the paradox of being near the turn. Both times I got 2 picks I really, really wanted.Now I get to :no: cross :rant: off :wall: names :kicksrock: for 35 picks.

 
So I feel pretty confident in saying that Alexander and Hannibal were not influenced by Sun Tzu and I would bet on Khan not being influenced either but I can't find any way to prove it right now. So definitely 2, possibly 3 of the top 4 military commanders of all time were not influenced by The Art of War. Not a great report card for arguing that he should be #1.

 
So I feel pretty confident in saying that Alexander and Hannibal were not influenced by Sun Tzu and I would bet on Khan not being influenced either but I can't find any way to prove it right now. So definitely 2, possibly 3 of the top 4 military commanders of all time were not influenced by The Art of War. Not a great report card for arguing that he should be #1.
It may turn out that Lao Tzu, taken at the start of the 4th round, is a better pick than Sun Tzu, taken at the start of the 1st. As Confucious said, "All crows under Heaven are black."
 
Hannibal is a fantastic pick. That was the other guy I considered taking at 4.01, but felt that the military category still has incredible depth, and comparatively speaking, Eliot is an equally valuable pick in his own category, for me.

 
And thus begins the part of the draft where I take guys that interest me moreso than how I think they'll be received.

4.5: Neil Armstrong - Explorer

He's the first human being to set foot on a world that is not Earth. 'Nuff said.

 
So who wins the one on one fight to the death between Ghenghis Khan and Hannibal? Say both are allowed to bring their weapons along...

 
So I feel pretty confident in saying that Alexander and Hannibal were not influenced by Sun Tzu and I would bet on Khan not being influenced either but I can't find any way to prove it right now. So definitely 2, possibly 3 of the top 4 military commanders of all time were not influenced by The Art of War. Not a great report card for arguing that he should be #1.
Thought everyone at one point or another was influenced by ST??? I could be wrong but I would be curious to your reasoning. It is his influence that makes him a possible argument of #1 Military Guy.
 
Neil's obviously a great choice, but wasn't it somewhat luck that he was the first guy to step on the moon? I mean, it could have been any of the three of them, right? I'm not sure how it was decided that it would be Armstrong, but because it was decided somewhat arbitrarily, it's hard to credit him with the voyage, the way we would credit a Columbus or a Magellan...

 
Neil's obviously a great choice, but wasn't it somewhat luck that he was the first guy to step on the moon? I mean, it could have been any of the three of them, right? I'm not sure how it was decided that it would be Armstrong, but because it was decided somewhat arbitrarily, it's hard to credit him with the voyage, the way we would credit a Columbus or a Magellan...
You're probably right. But it doesn't bother me. He was still first.
 
So who wins the one on one fight to the death between Ghenghis Khan and Hannibal? Say both are allowed to bring their weapons along...
Genghis wins. The Mongols were the greatest horsemen in the world. At a full racing gallop, they could shoot a third arrow before the first had landed. Mongols trained their children from boyhood to be mounted archers. That is what made them the devastating force they were. Hannibal would have never got a chance to use his weapons.
 
Neil's obviously a great choice, but wasn't it somewhat luck that he was the first guy to step on the moon? I mean, it could have been any of the three of them, right? I'm not sure how it was decided that it would be Armstrong, but because it was decided somewhat arbitrarily, it's hard to credit him with the voyage, the way we would credit a Columbus or a Magellan...
I don't think it was arbitrary because Armstrong was the command pilot.
 
Neil's obviously a great choice, but wasn't it somewhat luck that he was the first guy to step on the moon? I mean, it could have been any of the three of them, right? I'm not sure how it was decided that it would be Armstrong, but because it was decided somewhat arbitrarily, it's hard to credit him with the voyage, the way we would credit a Columbus or a Magellan...
I don't think it was arbitrary because Armstrong was the command pilot.
Exactly. Each of the three played a very specific role in the mission.
 
Neil's obviously a great choice, but wasn't it somewhat luck that he was the first guy to step on the moon? I mean, it could have been any of the three of them, right? I'm not sure how it was decided that it would be Armstrong, but because it was decided somewhat arbitrarily, it's hard to credit him with the voyage, the way we would credit a Columbus or a Magellan...
I don't think it was arbitrary because Armstrong was the command pilot.
:unsure: The bigger threat was that another flight crew would be chosen for Apollo 11, but given that it was his crew there was no question Armstrong would be first.
 
So I feel pretty confident in saying that Alexander and Hannibal were not influenced by Sun Tzu and I would bet on Khan not being influenced either but I can't find any way to prove it right now. So definitely 2, possibly 3 of the top 4 military commanders of all time were not influenced by The Art of War. Not a great report card for arguing that he should be #1.
Thought everyone at one point or another was influenced by ST??? I could be wrong but I would be curious to your reasoning. It is his influence that makes him a possible argument of #1 Military Guy.
Is this shtick or a real question?
 
So who wins the one on one fight to the death between Ghenghis Khan and Hannibal? Say both are allowed to bring their weapons along...
Genghis wins. The Mongols were the greatest horsemen in the world. At a full racing gallop, they could shoot a third arrow before the first had landed. Mongols trained their children from boyhood to be mounted archers. That is what made them the devastating force they were. Hannibal would have never got a chance to use his weapons.
"We will either find a way, or make one." :unsure:

But Alex beats them both, he's Marciano; he never lost.

 
Neil's obviously a great choice, but wasn't it somewhat luck that he was the first guy to step on the moon? I mean, it could have been any of the three of them, right? I'm not sure how it was decided that it would be Armstrong, but because it was decided somewhat arbitrarily, it's hard to credit him with the voyage, the way we would credit a Columbus or a Magellan...
It wasnt at all arbitrary. He was the mission commander and as such he piloted the Lunar Module. He was chosen to not only lead this particular mission, but also to be the first man on the moon.
 
So I feel pretty confident in saying that Alexander and Hannibal were not influenced by Sun Tzu and I would bet on Khan not being influenced either but I can't find any way to prove it right now. So definitely 2, possibly 3 of the top 4 military commanders of all time were not influenced by The Art of War. Not a great report card for arguing that he should be #1.
Thought everyone at one point or another was influenced by ST??? I could be wrong but I would be curious to your reasoning. It is his influence that makes him a possible argument of #1 Military Guy.
Tzu and Alexander lived at the same time. Alexander conquered the "known" world. It would be very hard for him to have studied the Art of War a/before it was written b/before he became a general and c/hw could he study something from a part of he world not even known to exist?Hannibal was a Meditearranean figure only a hundred or so years later. Don't think China was known to the "West" by then ro what influence such a different culture would've had on those early Med societies.Ghengis was a 13th century conqueror in the same region of Tzu so he could very well be familiar with it but I haven't found anything about it in his bios.Napoleon was influenced by it just as he was by Hannibal. This is why I contend that those that put theories of several different thorists to practical use should rank higher than theorists, unless some great general is known to ONLY use one theory to achieve some greatness.
 
So who wins the one on one fight to the death between Ghenghis Khan and Hannibal? Say both are allowed to bring their weapons along...
Genghis wins. The Mongols were the greatest horsemen in the world. At a full racing gallop, they could shoot a third arrow before the first had landed. Mongols trained their children from boyhood to be mounted archers. That is what made them the devastating force they were. Hannibal would have never got a chance to use his weapons.
"We will either find a way, or make one." :goodposting:

But Alex beats them both, he's Marciano; he never lost.
Neither did Genghis, to my knowledge. In fact, if Hannibal had not lost at Zama, he might well have climbed to #1 in the rankings. There is something to be said, not only for an undefeated season, but for an undefeated career.
 
Fantastic pick. My #3 military leader, after Genghis Khan and Alexander.
You really need to stop doing this. Some disagree about even commenting on category picks you're going to judge, but I dont think there is any disagreement that ranking before the draft is done is entirely detrimental.
 
So I feel pretty confident in saying that Alexander and Hannibal were not influenced by Sun Tzu and I would bet on Khan not being influenced either but I can't find any way to prove it right now. So definitely 2, possibly 3 of the top 4 military commanders of all time were not influenced by The Art of War. Not a great report card for arguing that he should be #1.
Thought everyone at one point or another was influenced by ST??? I could be wrong but I would be curious to your reasoning. It is his influence that makes him a possible argument of #1 Military Guy.
Tzu and Alexander lived at the same time. Alexander conquered the "known" world. It would be very hard for him to have studied the Art of War a/before it was written b/before he became a general and c/hw could he study something from a part of he world not even known to exist?Hannibal was a Meditearranean figure only a hundred or so years later. Don't think China was known to the "West" by then ro what influence such a different culture would've had on those early Med societies.Ghengis was a 13th century conqueror in the same region of Tzu so he could very well be familiar with it but I haven't found anything about it in his bios.Napoleon was influenced by it just as he was by Hannibal. This is why I contend that those that put theories of several different thorists to practical use should rank higher than theorists, unless some great general is known to ONLY use one theory to achieve some greatness.
Which is why maybe Tzu should be an intellectual.
 
Neil's obviously a great choice, but wasn't it somewhat luck that he was the first guy to step on the moon? I mean, it could have been any of the three of them, right? I'm not sure how it was decided that it would be Armstrong, but because it was decided somewhat arbitrarily, it's hard to credit him with the voyage, the way we would credit a Columbus or a Magellan...
It wasnt at all arbitrary. He was the mission commander and as such he piloted the Lunar Module. He was chosen to not only lead this particular mission, but also to be the first man on the moon.
I was debating this pick but wasn't sure on how much of the prep and planning Armstrong did. It took incredibly more men and technology worknig in unison to land him there and quite frankly what's the reason/purpose of doing it? Most of the explorers' explorations led to material gains for their homelands. Other than beating the Russkies to it what has landing on the moon done for us? Why hasn't it been done again?
 
Neil's obviously a great choice, but wasn't it somewhat luck that he was the first guy to step on the moon? I mean, it could have been any of the three of them, right? I'm not sure how it was decided that it would be Armstrong, but because it was decided somewhat arbitrarily, it's hard to credit him with the voyage, the way we would credit a Columbus or a Magellan...
It wasnt at all arbitrary. He was the mission commander and as such he piloted the Lunar Module. He was chosen to not only lead this particular mission, but also to be the first man on the moon.
IIRC, Armstrong was one of the few (if not only) civilian test pilots in NASA. The others like Shepard or Glenn or Lovell were ex-military and NASA and LBJ felt that it was important that it be a civilian who first stepped on the moon. All those Right Stuff guys of Apollo and Gemini and Mercury are true American heros because they were being asked to fly hardware that came from the lowest bidder. And again IIRC, the computer in your car has more horsepower than the computers aboard the command module and the Lunar lander.
 
Neil's obviously a great choice, but wasn't it somewhat luck that he was the first guy to step on the moon? I mean, it could have been any of the three of them, right? I'm not sure how it was decided that it would be Armstrong, but because it was decided somewhat arbitrarily, it's hard to credit him with the voyage, the way we would credit a Columbus or a Magellan...
It wasnt at all arbitrary. He was the mission commander and as such he piloted the Lunar Module. He was chosen to not only lead this particular mission, but also to be the first man on the moon.
I was debating this pick but wasn't sure on how much of the prep and planning Armstrong did. It took incredibly more men and technology worknig in unison to land him there and quite frankly what's the reason/purpose of doing it? Most of the explorers' explorations led to material gains for their homelands. Other than beating the Russkies to it what has landing on the moon done for us? Why hasn't it been done again?
There were 7 manned moon landings. Once they figured out that there was nothing there, there was no reason to go back.
 
Can I pick?
:blackdot:Can I? Locked and loaded... Waiting for the go ahead.
Why wouldn't you? It's your pick right?
Well, HTH said the next guy could go, but didn't say to put him on autoskip, so not sure what the protocol is... He said he'd be making his pick at about 4PM.
Ah, good point... his pick slot has timed out though (at 3:50).
Alright, I'll start my writeup then. Pick coming shortly.
 
Neil's obviously a great choice, but wasn't it somewhat luck that he was the first guy to step on the moon? I mean, it could have been any of the three of them, right? I'm not sure how it was decided that it would be Armstrong, but because it was decided somewhat arbitrarily, it's hard to credit him with the voyage, the way we would credit a Columbus or a Magellan...
It wasnt at all arbitrary. He was the mission commander and as such he piloted the Lunar Module. He was chosen to not only lead this particular mission, but also to be the first man on the moon.
I was debating this pick but wasn't sure on how much of the prep and planning Armstrong did. It took incredibly more men and technology worknig in unison to land him there and quite frankly what's the reason/purpose of doing it? Most of the explorers' explorations led to material gains for their homelands. Other than beating the Russkies to it what has landing on the moon done for us? Why hasn't it been done again?
Well, first off, the expeditions of all the other explorers picked so far were also massive undertakings in their day and required relatively vast sums from the treasuries to succeed. None of them were acting alone.As for what we've gotten out of space exploration, well, were still in the infancy of the space age. But even still, global communications, GPS, microwaves, Tang, insights into the beginning of the universe, medicines, etc...The wealth of resources available in just the astroid belt would dwarf the collective wealth of the entire world many times over. Besides, its not like within 40 years of Columbus the Americas were being fully exploited, and space is a tad bit harder to exploit.
 
Fantastic pick. My #3 military leader, after Genghis Khan and Alexander.
You really need to stop doing this. Some disagree about even commenting on category picks you're going to judge, but I dont think there is any disagreement that ranking before the draft is done is entirely detrimental.
Why? They're gone. I recognize that if I give a rank where there are still others above them, it could be detrimental. But anyone picking now, still has the option of taking the remaining #1 on the board. It shouldn't affect their judgment. Does it harm people to know that Shakespeare is $1? Obviously, this is not my call, since it is not my thread. But I see no harm in it. And as far as commenting on it, I can hardly think of anything more boring than have a draft with no commentary. But if people don't want me to, call me when the draft is over.
 
Fantastic pick. My #3 military leader, after Genghis Khan and Alexander.
You really need to stop doing this. Some disagree about even commenting on category picks you're going to judge, but I dont think there is any disagreement that ranking before the draft is done is entirely detrimental.
Why? They're gone. I recognize that if I give a rank where there are still others above them, it could be detrimental. But anyone picking now, still has the option of taking the remaining #1 on the board. It shouldn't affect their judgment. Does it harm people to know that Shakespeare is $1? Obviously, this is not my call, since it is not my thread. But I see no harm in it. And as far as commenting on it, I can hardly think of anything more boring than have a draft with no commentary. But if people don't want me to, call me when the draft is over.
I like commentary that livens up a draft, but I agree with dparker that judges should remain silent until after the draft ends, at least as it pertains to their category.
 
Fantastic pick. My #3 military leader, after Genghis Khan and Alexander.
You really need to stop doing this. Some disagree about even commenting on category picks you're going to judge, but I dont think there is any disagreement that ranking before the draft is done is entirely detrimental.
Why? They're gone. I recognize that if I give a rank where there are still others above them, it could be detrimental. But anyone picking now, still has the option of taking the remaining #1 on the board. It shouldn't affect their judgment. Does it harm people to know that Shakespeare is $1? Obviously, this is not my call, since it is not my thread. But I see no harm in it. And as far as commenting on it, I can hardly think of anything more boring than have a draft with no commentary. But if people don't want me to, call me when the draft is over.
Your commentary is excellent, just probably best to stick to tiers rather than specific numbers.
 
Fantastic pick. My #3 military leader, after Genghis Khan and Alexander.
You really need to stop doing this. Some disagree about even commenting on category picks you're going to judge, but I dont think there is any disagreement that ranking before the draft is done is entirely detrimental.
Why? They're gone. I recognize that if I give a rank where there are still others above them, it could be detrimental. But anyone picking now, still has the option of taking the remaining #1 on the board. It shouldn't affect their judgment. Does it harm people to know that Shakespeare is $1? Obviously, this is not my call, since it is not my thread. But I see no harm in it. And as far as commenting on it, I can hardly think of anything more boring than have a draft with no commentary. But if people don't want me to, call me when the draft is over.
I think it only became an "issue" in the other draft because people started guessing at who the unpicked people were in Thorn's author list. I don't really care and love your commentary, so either way, please continue.
 
I suspect this pick may not be incredibly popular, as this guy is not as well known or notorious as others in the category, but I can't find a good reason not to take him here. I think a strong case could be made that he belongs in the discussion for top leader. At the very worst, I think he belongs in the top 5. Whether or not the judge's rankings bear this out, I don't know, but I can't say I care either, as I've already said I'm picking guys in this draft who I like regardless of how I think they'll be perceived. Not only was this man thousands of years ahead of his time as leader, advocating non-violence, love, truth, and tolerance, but is largely responsible for spreading Buddhism throughout much of Asia and the rest of the world, and is considered second among Buddhists only to Buddha

My pick for leader is:



Asoka, AKA Ashoka the Great



Ashoka (Devanāgarī: अशोकः, IAST: Aśokaḥ, IPA: [aɕoːkə(hə)], 304 BCE – 232 BCE) was an Indian emperor, of the Maurya Dynasty who ruled almost all of the Indian subcontinent from 273 BCE to 232 BCE. Often cited as one of India's as well as world's greatest emperors. Ashoka reigned over most of present-day India after a number of military conquests. His empire stretched from present-day Pakistan, Afghanistan in the west, to the present-day Bangladesh and the Indian state of Assam in the east, and as far south as the brahmagiri in Karnataka. He could conquer the kingdom named Kalinga,which no one in his dynasty could conquer starting from Chandragupt Maurya. His reign was headquartered in Magadha (present-day Bihar, India). [1] He embraced Buddhism from the prevalent Vedic tradition after witnessing the mass deaths of the war of Kalinga, which he himself had waged out of a desire for conquest. He was later dedicated in the propagation of Buddhism across Asia and established monuments marking several significant sites in the life of Gautama Buddha. Ashoka in human history is often referred as the emperor of all ages. Ashoka was a devotee of ahimsa (nonviolence), love, truth, tolerance and Vegetarianism. Ashoka is remembered in history as a philanthropic administrator.In the history of India Ashoka is referred to as Samrath Chakravartin Ashoka- the Emperor of Emperors Ashoka.

His name "aśoka" means "without sorrow" in Sanskrit (a= no/without, soka= sorrow or worry). In his edicts, he is referred to as Devānāmpriya (Devanāgarī: देवानांप्रिय)/Devānaṃpiya or "The Beloved Of The Gods", and Priyadarśin (Devanāgarī: प्रियदर्शी)/Piyadassī or "He who regards everyone amiably". Another title of his is Dhamma (prakrit: धम्मः), "Lawful, Religious, Righteous".

Renowned British author and social critic H. G. Wells in his bestselling two-volume work, The Outline of History (1920), wrote of emperor Ashoka:

"In the history of the world there have been thousands of kings and emperors who called themselves 'their highnesses,' 'their majesties,' and 'their exalted majesties' and so on. They shone for a brief moment, and as quickly disappeared. But Ashoka shines and shines brightly like a bright star, even unto this day."

Along with the Edicts of Ashoka, his legend is related in the later 2nd century Aśokāvadāna ("Narrative of Asoka") and Divyāvadāna ("Divine narrative"), and in the Sinhalese text Mahavamsa ("Great Chronicle"). Although there are many inscriptions of Ashoka, no coins which can be confidently linked to him have been found. This may be linked to the fact that his contemporary and neighbor Diodotus I has numerous coins but no inscriptions. Moreover, the Kandahar bilingual inscription clearly indicates that Ashoka was the ruler of this area but the coins point to Diodotus-I as the ruler. Ranajit Pal attempts to resolve the problem by suggesting that Ashoka was the same as Diodotus I.[2] He maintains that Patali (28°19'58" La., 57°52'16" Lo.)[3] near Kohnouj and Konarak in the Gulf Area was Patliputra.[4]



After two thousand years, the influence of Ashoka is seen in south asia and especially the Indian subcontinent. An emblem excavated from his empire is today the national Emblem of India. In the history of Buddhism Ashoka is marked just next to Gautam Buddha.



Contributions



Global Spread of Buddhism

Ashoka, now a Buddhist emperor, believed that Buddhism is beneficial for all human beings as well as animals and plants, so he built 84,000 stupas, Sangharama, viharas, Chaitya, and residences for Buddhist monks all over South Asia and Central Asia. He gave donations to viharas and mathas. He sent his only daughter Sanghamitta and son Mahindra to spread Buddhism in Sri Lanka (ancient name Tamraparni). Ashoka also invited Buddhists and non-Buddhists for religious conferences. Ashoka inspired the Buddhist monks to compose the sacred religious texts, and also gave all types of help to that end. Ashoka also helped to develop viharas (intellectual hubs) such as Nalanda and Taxila. Ashoka helped to construct Sanchi and Mahabodhi Temple. Ashoka never tried to harm or to destroy non-Buddhist religions, and indeed gave donations to non-Buddhists. Ashoka helped and respected both Sramans (Buddhists monks) and Brahmins (Vedic monks). Ashoka also helped to organize the Third Buddhist council (c. 250 BCE) at Pataliputra (today's Patna).



As an Administrator



Ashoka's military power was so strong that he was able to crush the neighbors like Cholas, Pandya, Keralputra, the post Alexandrian empire, Tamraparni, and Suvarnabhumi but he never harmed them. Rather, according to his edicts we know that he provided humanitarian help including doctors, hospitals, inns, wells, medical herbs and engineers to his neighboring countries. In his neighboring countries Ashoka helped humans as well as animals. Ashoka also planted trees in his empire and his neighboring countries. Ashoka was perhaps the first emperor in human history to ban slavery, hunting, fishing and deforestation. Ashoka also banned the death sentence and asked the same for the neighboring countries. Ashoka commanded his people to serve the orders of their elders (parents) and religious monks. Ashoka also recommended his people study all religions and respect all religions. According to Ashoka, to harm another's religion is a harm to someone's owns religion. Ashoka asserted his people to live with Dharmmacharana. Ashoka asked people to live with harmony, peace, love and tolerance. Ashoka called his people as his children, and they could call him when they need him. He also asked people to save money and not to spend for immoral causes. Ashoka also believed in dharmacharana(dhammacharana) and dharmavijaya(dhammavijaya). According to many European and Asian historians the age of Ashoka was the age of light and delightment. He was the first emperor in human history who has taught the lesson of unity, peace, equality and love. Ashoka's aim was not to expand the territories but the welfare of all of his subjects (sarvajansukhay). In his vast empire there was no evidence of recognizable mutiny or civil war. Ashoka was the true devotee of nonviolence, peace and love. This made him different from other emperors. Ashoka also helped Buddhism as well as religions like Jainism, Hinduism, Hellenic polytheism and Ajivikas. Ashoka was against any discrimination among humans. He helped students, the poor, orphans and the elderly with social, political and economic help. According to Ashoka, hatred gives birth to hatred and a feeling of love gives birth to love and mercy. According to him the happiness of people is the happiness of the ruler. His opinion was that the sword is not as powerful as love. Ashoka was also Kind to prisoners, and respected animal life and tree life. Ashoka allowed females to be educated. He also permitted females to enter religious institutions. He allowed female Buddhist monastic such as Bhikkhuni. He combined in himself the complexity a king and a simplicity of a buddhist monk. Because of these reasons he is known as the emperor of all ages and thus became a milestone in the History of the world.



Ashoka Chakra

The Ashoka Chakra (the wheel of Ashok the Great) is a depiction of the Dharmachakra or Dhammachakka in Pali, the Wheel of Dharma (Sanskrit: Chakra means wheel). The wheel has 24 spokes. The Ashoka Chakra has been widely inscribed on many relics of the Mauryan Emperor, most prominent among which is the Lion Capital of Sarnath and The Ashoka Pillar. The most visible use of the Ashoka Chakra today is at the centre of the National flag of the Republic of India (adopted on 22 July 1947), where it is rendered in a Navy-blue color on a White background, by replacing the symbol of Charkha (Spinning wheel) of the pre-independence versions of the flag. Ashoka Chakra can also been seen on the base of Lion Capital of Ashoka which has been adopted as the National Emblem of India.

The Ashoka chakra was built by Ashoka during his reign. Chakra is a Sanskrit word which also means cycle or self repeating process. The process it signifies is the cycle of time as how the world changes with time. The horse means accuracy and speed while the bull means hardwork.

A few days before India became independent on August 1947, the specially constituted Constituent Assembly decided that the flag of India must be acceptable to all parties and communities.[9] A flag with three colours, Saffron, White and Green with the Ashoka Chakra was selected. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, who later became India's first Vice President, clarified the adopted flag and described its significance as follows:

"Bhagwa or the saffron color denotes renunciation or disinterestedness. Our leaders must be indifferent to material gains and dedicate themselves to their work. The white in the center is light, the path of truth to guide our conduct. The green shows our relation to (the) soil, our relation to the plant life here, on which all other life depends. The "Ashoka Chakra" in the center of the white is the wheel of the law of dharma. Truth or satya, dharma or virtue ought to be the controlling principle of those who work under this flag. Again, the wheel denotes motion. There is death in stagnation. There is life in movement. India should no more resist change, it must move and go forward. The wheel represents the dynamism of a peaceful change. It also represents 24 hours in a day."

A widely held unofficial interpretation is that the saffron stands for purity and spirituality, white for peace and truth, green for fertility and prosperity and the wheel for justice/righteousness.

The twenty four spokes in this chakra wheel represent twenty four virtues:

1. Love

2. Courage

3. Patience

4. Peacefulness

5. Kindness

6. Goodness

7. Faithfulness

8. Gentleness

9. Self-control

10. Selflessness

11. Self sacrifice

12. Truthfulness

13. Righteousness

14. Justice

15. Mercy

16. Graciousness

17. Humility

18. Empathy

19. Sympathy

20. Supreme knowledge

21. Supreme wisdom

22. Supreme moral

23. Love for all beings

24. Hope, trust, or faith in the goodness of God or nature.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantastic pick. My #3 military leader, after Genghis Khan and Alexander.
You really need to stop doing this. Some disagree about even commenting on category picks you're going to judge, but I dont think there is any disagreement that ranking before the draft is done is entirely detrimental.
Why? They're gone. I recognize that if I give a rank where there are still others above them, it could be detrimental. But anyone picking now, still has the option of taking the remaining #1 on the board. It shouldn't affect their judgment. Does it harm people to know that Shakespeare is $1? Obviously, this is not my call, since it is not my thread. But I see no harm in it. And as far as commenting on it, I can hardly think of anything more boring than have a draft with no commentary. But if people don't want me to, call me when the draft is over.
Well, if someone picks a military person that you consider not even in the top 20, they may re-pick that selection to try to curry favor, and then choose to move that person to a WC slot. It happened to several people in the last draft and effected the picks that they would have made later in the draft. And there are plenty of picks that are not military that you could comment on. No need to avoid the draft, even if you decide not to comment on military picks.
 
I suspect this pick may not be incredibly popular, as this guy is not as well known or notorious as others in the category, but I can't find a good reason not to take him here. I think a strong case could be made that he belongs in the discussion for top leader. At the very worst, I think he belongs in the top 5. Whether or not the judge's rankings bear this out, I don't know, but I can't say I care either, as I've already said I'm picking guys in this draft who I like regardless of how I think they'll be perceived.My pick for leader is:Asoka, AKA Ashoka the Great
My favorite CIV leader. :hot:
 
Although Cook was British, it was other countries that benefited most from his discoveries. Hawaii was soon dominated by America, for example, which used the Islands as a harbor for it's whalers in the first half of the 19th Century. Tahiti was dominated by France.
I hardly think that New Zealand and Australia would agree with that. Great Britain had a problem after 1776 (most Americans don't know this). They didn't have a place to send their jailbirds. Enter Australia. Problem solved.
you're right about Australia. I forgot that he basically discovered that too. And New Zealand.
:hot: How could you forget Australia?It had been discovered before him, he mapped and claimed it for Britain
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top