# "The Great"



## Brian G Turner (Oct 23, 2004)

I only found this out the other day - the reason why certain notables in history are called "The Great" is not a simple act of reverse propaganda, but actually an established system of recognising people who _created new nations_.

 So that's why we have Alexander the Great, Constantine the Great, Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, etcetera.

 Empire and nation builders.

 Bit of trivia for you.


----------



## Foxbat (Oct 23, 2004)

Here's another bit of triv for you.

Catherine The Great's supporters had her husband murdered. She had to make up some kind of reason for his death and so blamed his demise on Haemaroidal colic.....ouch


----------



## malfunkshun (Oct 26, 2004)

what, no Jefferson the Great, Washington the great, Adams the great, Hancock the great, etc


----------



## dwndrgn (Oct 26, 2004)

malfunkshun said:
			
		

> what, no Jefferson the Great, Washington the great, Adams the great, Hancock the great, etc


Well, who wants to hear about someone called 'George the Great' or 'Thomas the Great' just doesn't have that ring to it  ...besides, none of them did it singlehandedly (or basically with the main 'wand of power' and tons of flunkies and armies to back it up), they worked as a group, a team of semi like-minded snobs (oops, did I sneak that in?  ) who hashed out together what they wanted the new nation to be like.  Of course, I'm not sure we actually ended up with what _they_ were going for but, it works for me  .


----------



## Morning Star (Oct 26, 2004)

That is an interesting fact Brian, in return here's some trivia on one of my favourite conquerors, Alexander the Great.

Whilst visiting the tomb of Alexander, Emperor Augustus kissed the body (!!!) and broke off Alex's 300 year old nose.


----------



## Hypes (Oct 26, 2004)

What about Pompeius Magnus?


----------



## polymorphikos (Oct 27, 2004)

He snuck in under the condefication radar by several centuries.


----------



## Rane Longfox (Oct 28, 2004)

God the Great?


----------



## aimee02 (Oct 28, 2004)

It's not just for forming a nation but rather establishing an empire... there's actually some measure of territory that is supposed to be conquored before you can become 'great'. And it has to be done singlehandedly. Rules out the Ameicans despite their constant expansionism.

He actually broke off his nose?!


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 28, 2004)

Indeed, Aimee - thanks for the correction. 

 I tried to play safe with "nation" rather than Empire as my knowledge of Russian history is pretty poor.


----------



## Foxbat (Oct 28, 2004)

> It's not just for forming a nation but rather establishing an empire



If this is the case then a great (pun intended) injustice has been done to Grigory Potemkin. Without his statecraft and strategy, Russia would never have gained the Black Sea Territories or absorbed Cossacks etc into the Russian Empire. Add to that the cities founded by him (Sebastopol and Odessa are but two of them) then surely this man should be 'Grigory The Great'.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (Oct 28, 2004)

I wrote an essay at college entitled:  'Was Alexander the Great truly great?'  It was quite childish but absorbed many of the arguments that are being put forth by our learned members.  Good to see!


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 28, 2004)

Hm...nation or empire? The only British monarch I can think of was Alfred the Great. He created the beginnings of England as a nation, but I don't believe there was an empire involved.


----------



## Alexa (Oct 29, 2004)

I would like to mention, Stephen the Great or the "Saint" (he has been canonized in 1992) who ruled Moldavia (a part of Romania) between 1457-1504 and won European renown for his long resistence to the Otoman Empire. He rules for 47 years, led 47 battles, maintly against the Turks and he build, rebuild or patronized about the same number of fortresses, churches and monastries, which won him the acclaim of Pope Sixtus IV as the "Athlete of Christ".


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Mar 11, 2005)

I said:
			
		

> Hm...nation or empire? The only British monarch I can think of was Alfred the Great. He created the beginnings of England as a nation, but I don't believe there was an empire involved.


 
yeah - that has a sneaky "self-applied" look to it, doesn't it? 
mind you, I suppose you could argue that he brought together the seperate 'kingdoms' of wessex & mercia to form England, so...


mind you - in that case, shouldn't someone like Henry I or Queen Victoria apply?
I know that Henry effectively 'married' into his empire rather than conquering it, but most of Britain's colonial expansion happened during or just before Queen Victoria's reign, so I'm surprised she didn't fall into that category.
It's possibly not a very PC term these days as it basically involves nicking someone else's country!!


----------



## Calis (Jun 17, 2005)

Calis the Great.


----------



## Stalker (Jun 21, 2005)

*The very notion of Greatness refers purely to absolutism*, so you won't find any democratic president or consul of Modern Era whom we know as "Great". Even Napoleon wasn't called so, brobably not in the least because that he was overthrown.
*Alexander the Great* - a great conqueror and tyrant. His greatness consequently lies in his unbelievable conquest. I may call him a Great one only by two reasons:
1st reason (military) he was able to invent unbelievable for ancient world and even not even for it, logistics capable of feeding his army and supplying it with all the rest it needed.
2nd reason (cultural) he was the first and the last whose deed resulted in peculiar mixture of western and oriental cultures.
All the rest is typical murder, rape and violence
*Peter the Great*, moscovian csar who proclaimed himself the Emperor and tried to put the thin layer of the European makeup over Asian snout of "Moscovia". He, however was that particular ruler who had finally accomplished the transition of Russian peasantry into complete feudal dependence that was next to slavery - a great shame for the Empire that called itself a Great to have peasants whom their masters could change for a good Borzoy puppy! I also cannot call the Great this rapist of Ukraine.  I sometimes feel ashamed to have Russian background but then I remember Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, Tchaikovsky and Chekhov and I restore my balance.
*Katherine the Great*? Well, she tried to look like an educated monarch. She even kept correspondence with Voltaire (a great and naive man who always thought he was a cunning person), and used to built Potyomkin villages. She didn't even move a finger to make her people be happy. The result is Pugachev's uprisal and abolishing Cossak Sich in Zaporizhzhya.
So the concluion that *the nations gave the title "the Great" to the most ruthless and bloody conquerors and rapitsts*. History also has sence of irony!!!

What concerns *Alfred the Great* of Saxon Dinasty. He also looks like an educated person, a wise king but he also use to fight Vikings a lot and who knows...


----------



## Leto (Jun 21, 2005)

Strangely Napoleon the 1st was known as the Great, later, as a mockery to speak of his successor Napoleton III the Little.


----------

