# What Famous Historical Figure(s) Would You Like to Meet and What Would They Think of You?



## BAYLOR (Sep 27, 2015)

Which famous figures would you Like to meet? Would you tell them how they are remembered in History and popular culture ? What are they Linley to think on of how they're remembered? And what would they think of you as a person?

What would they think the present era of out world ?  Would they like it or would they be appalled by it?


Thoughts?


----------



## DCBastien (Sep 27, 2015)

I'm going to be odd and say Aristophanes. He was a Greek playwrite contemporary to Plato and Socrates. As well as the great tragedians. He had such a cutting sense of humour and way with words.

He'd be delighted-horrified to see the world had barely changed since his days. And I'm sure he'd find the new forms of communication and accessing entertainment an interesting challenge. He'd be pleased his work survived because of appreciation for his skill with language, and he'd think I was pretentious I'm sure XD


----------



## Gramm838 (Sep 28, 2015)

William the *******...always been fascinated by the gamble he took in invading England. First question to him? "What if that arrow hadn't killed Harald - were you f****d?"

He'd probably think I was the epitome of a English southern softie...although I'm from the North East! having never held a sword in anger he'd think I was a wimp - his time was rough and brutal, nothing like the feminine dominated world we live in now.


----------



## logan_run (Nov 16, 2015)

*Grover   Cleveland*
He be surpirsed someone is interested in him and surpirsed no defeated presidents made a come back like he did  he is numbered  twice in the lis tof president.


----------



## BAYLOR (May 18, 2016)

T. E Lawrence . Given his life, I bet he would an interesting man to talk to.


----------



## anno (May 18, 2016)

Catherine the Great,I have a question...


----------



## Lafayette (Jun 14, 2016)

I'm surprise that you haven't received more responses to your question.

If one deems the Bible history I will start there. Moses for he had a lot of love, patients, and faith, King David (did he have red hair?) so I could take away that sissy harp and give him a manly instrument namely a Martin or Gibson 12-string guitar.  Samson: was he as big and bury as I image. Did woman consider him a stud? Peter and Paul: what were they like before and after conversion. Moses may have judged me as another stiff neck Israelite. David and Samson may have considered me as whimp. Peter and Paul may have respected my spirituality, but may have frown upon my lack of zeal. Jesus is a given. Wild Bill Hickock, George Armstrong Custard, and Lafayette. Was Wild as tough as history or legend  made him out to be? Would today's criminals fear him? Did Custard always swagger in the saddle? Did he have any military acuteness?

Lafayette:because he risked his fortune, his reputation, and his life for a cause that he didn't need to get involved with. he tried to talk Jefferson and Washington in freeing their slaves, he stood up for principles and suffered for persecutions for them, and was one Frenchman that actually liked and admired Americans.


----------



## MWagner (Jun 17, 2016)

Richard Burton (the explorer, not the actor - though I'd enjoy tipping back a few with him too). He'd probably be mad his wife burned his translation of the kama sutra and some of his other papers. He would think I was soft as butter. Considering the fact he thought he was born a couple centuries too late, and thought the Victoria era was lame and boring, safe to say he would think the world today was lame and boring.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 17, 2017)

MWagner said:


> Richard Burton (the explorer, not the actor - though I'd enjoy tipping back a few with him too). He'd probably be mad his wife burned his translation of the kama sutra and some of his other papers. He would think I was soft as butter. Considering the fact he thought he was born a couple centuries too late, and thought the Victoria era was lame and boring, safe to say he would think the world today was lame and boring.



He would have been an interesting man to talk to.


----------



## hej (Oct 3, 2017)

BAYLOR said:


> Which famous figures would you Like to meet? Would you tell them how they are remembered in History and popular culture ? What are they Linley to think on of how they're remembered? And what would they think of you as a person?
> 
> What would they think the present era of out world ?  Would they like it or would they be appalled by it?
> 
> ...



Aristotle -- presuming that I could communicate with him (i.e. in Ancient Greek).

I would certainly point out how his manner of thinking kept Europe in the Dark Ages -- at least until Francis Bacon's New Organon, and likely even until the Enlightenment.

I suspect he would be arrogant and (blindly?) confident in his positions, nonetheless.

I think he would think of me as someone not to be taken seriously -- i.e. he would have less respect for my positions (see below) than even those of Plato.

I do not think he would believe our present circumstances. "Women can rule" (Merkel, May, etc.) is just not possible for him.

And I would put to him two points.

He held that men are distinct from animals in that they can reason. Women, he claimed, have this ability to reason -- but in an undeveloped form. Socrates demonstrated that a slave could learn basic math. If I were to demonstrate that a woman could develop reasoning, would he at the very least consider that hers was undeveloped owing to a lack of schooling? I think not.

Equally important, he put forth an attitude on slavery as follows (paraphrased), the reason slavery is good is that we have slavery. If one can educate a slave and make them just as able as a free man, and if free, they are more productive owing to the free enterprise system, would that demonstrate that slavery is a hindrance to societal development to him? I have my doubts.

Still, I would have a fun time at the Academy, that is, until his followers started stalking me -- and tried to shut me up (i.e. kill me).


----------



## Caledfwlch (Oct 5, 2017)

Gramm838 said:


> William the *******...always been fascinated by the gamble he took in invading England. First question to him? "What if that arrow hadn't killed Harald - were you f****d?"
> 
> He'd probably think I was the epitome of a English southern softie...although I'm from the North East! having never held a sword in anger he'd think I was a wimp - his time was rough and brutal, nothing like the feminine dominated world we live in now.



He wouldn't know what a "Soft southern Jessie" is  

I am not as knowledgeable on 1066 as I should be - but if I understand the course of the battle correctly, I don't think the arrow missing Harold would have made a difference. Effectively, towards the end, the English had won, even William's vaunted heavy cavalry had not managed to break the English Shield Wall, the Normans began pulling back, and like a bunch of fools, the English Infantry overjoyed they had "won" began chasing the Normans, breaking up their well disciplined shield walls, and presenting a beautiful broken up target for the Norman Cavalry to mop up and destroy. I suppose it's possible that a living Harold may have been able to call the men back into their shield walls....

I would like to meet Le Empereur, Napoleon. I would ask him why given he represented a future of freedom, or at least one far more free than that allowed by the "Old Order" the dreadful and parasitical Monarchies of Europe, he chose to invade and conquer Spain, and allowed his Armies to carry out a reign of terror - even the fact that he told his armies not to waste time and resources with food baggage trains, but to take from the land led to thousands of peasants being killed defending their crops, or being left to starve.

If he wanted Spain removed as a potential threat, he could have inspired an uprising against the Spanish Monarchy and old order. Many thousands of Europeans, fought for him, many thousands more would have joined, were it not for concern over French behaviour in Spain. The Imperial Armies had Dutch, Polish, Flemish, Italian Regiments.
If an indisputable book was found listing members of for example the British Aristocracy, upper middle classes etc who secretly supported Napoleon, and would have joined him given the chance, there would probably still be a huge scandal, even 200 years later.


----------



## Radrook (Oct 18, 2017)

Crassus

Crassus would believe himself remembered as a fool for having fallen into the trap set by Surena and not having listened to advice.

As I wrote in my blog at another website:

I have always been fascinated by the history of Rome-in particular its military success and reverses. One of the most interesting I find is the battle of Carrhae, a small town near which it took place, because it illustrates two things that the Bible tells us:

1. that the blind leading the blind will lead them all into a pit

*Matthew 15:14 **►*

New International Version
Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit."

2. that love of money can lead to all kinds of self-inflicted wounds.

*1 Timothy 6:10 **►*

New International Version
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

---------------------------
Most modern historians tend to view insatiable greed, envy as the motivation for the campaign.. So this is in full harmony with their opinion.

Now, the man who is responsible for providing us with this confirmation was the rich and famous Crassus-the richest man in Rome at the time. His riches were derived from, his unscrupulous policies to increase his wealth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Licinius_Crassus

Part of his military fame was for having defeated Spartacus the gladiator who led a rebellion against Rome involving freed slaves. But of course he wanted more! He envied Julius Caesar’s growing military success in Gaul as well as Pompey’s successes . So after gaining control of Syria by being appointed as its governor, he struck East towards the Parthian Empire. Not that Parthia deserved to be attacked since Rome and Parthia were at peace. So this was a personal venture largely subsidized by his own money in order to gain more fame and increase wealth.

The gist of the story, to make a long story short, is this. Crassus ignored the advice to stay clear of the desert and refused the offer of 10,000 Armenian cavalry from king Artavasdes II .

Instead he paid attention to the advice of an Arab in the employ of the Parthian king and plunged mindlessly into the arid region where a trap had been laid by Parthia general Surena. There he and his 34,000 were surrounded by Parthian cavalry and showered with seemingly endless barrages of arrows.

His son, Publius Crassus, who had brought 1,000 Celtic cavalry from Gaul was beheaded and his head displayed on a spear after he fell into a trap where his cavalry was confronted by 1000 heavily armored Parthian cataphracts and prevented from escaping by horse archers.

Crassus was forced to retreat to the town of Carrhae and leave 5000 wounded behind to be slaughtered. He was finally beheaded himself and had his head displayed in a Parthian play as a prop according to Plutarch's biography of Crassus. . The total losess were 20,000 killed and 10,000 captured. All this totally unnecessary since at age 62 Crassus was already rich and famous.

So essentially I would ask him why he was so trusting of that Arab, why he refused help from the Armenian king, and why did he insist that his men fight while they were exhausted. I would also ask why he felt he needed more after having accomplished so much already and why he felt that Parthia deserved no respect.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 24, 2018)

I would like to have met Franklin Delano Roosevelt given that he was one the great presidents we ever had.


----------

