A Hero for Our Times

[farthammer]

Political figures make bad heroes.  Even if they deserve to be called one, some other group comes along and tries to twist their legacy and reinvent history for their own political purposes.

[Tsunami]

I guess it all depends on what the contextual definiteion of 'hero' is. Again, the only person I can think of to whom it applies down the line is Winston Churchill.

I am one of those who is guilty of not worshipping at the alter of Saint Winston.

 

He was a racist through and through.  He had no regard for the native peoples of the British Empire, and had every wish to reassert British control once the war was concluded.  How many lives were lost because the Brits couldn't simply pull out and have done with it?

[Bob T Dwarf]

 

can't recall the name, but some central american who achieved independance from Spain

 

Simon Bolivar.  ( there's supposed to be an accent grave or umlaat or one of them strange thingies European languages use in there somewhere )

 

Dr. Albert Schweitzer would be another good candidate.

 

 

[maradon]

Whoever said John Basilone is completely correct. Anyone who can, go and stream a few episodes of 'The Pacific', its a mini-series produced by HBO and directed by Tom Hanks (done in the same way as Band of Brothers). There is one episode you need to watch, I believe it is Episode 8, but it is all about John Basilone and it is brilliant! One of the best pieces of television I've ever watched. Anyway watch that (it's 100% historically accurate) and you will all be saying that he should be one of the HoH. They also show Chesty Puller in the series, but I can't remember if he's in any of the combat or not. Anyway watch the episode and if you can watch the whole series and the Band of Brothers series, definately worthwhile.

[Majsju]

Salah ad-Din

[Hadilmir]

Audie Murphy

Awesome guy, shame he died 15 miles from my house...

 

I nominate Audie Murphy.

[Knobs Mahoney]

Aaron Ralston.

 

If you don't know who he is...kill yourself.

[Tsunami]

Aaron Ralston.

 

If you don't know who he is...kill yourself.

 

Aron Lee Ralston?  I think he would advocate cutting something off rather than killing.

[Crael123]

Whoever said John Basilone is completely correct. Anyone who can, go and stream a few episodes of 'The Pacific', its a mini-series produced by HBO and directed by Tom Hanks (done in the same way as Band of Brothers). There is one episode you need to watch, I believe it is Episode 8, but it is all about John Basilone and it is brilliant! One of the best pieces of television I've ever watched. Anyway watch that (it's 100% historically accurate) and you will all be saying that he should be one of the HoH. They also show Chesty Puller in the series, but I can't remember if he's in any of the combat or not. Anyway watch the episode and if you can watch the whole series and the Band of Brothers series, definately worthwhile.

 

looked theses guys up... damn. damn

[jemron]

Speaking of HBO series:

 

John Adams.

 

Also, if we could go back further, an obvious one would be...

 

Jesus Christ.

 

If you're a Christian, you believe He'll be back soon too  ;)

[Barid Bel Medar]

IM gonna have to agree wtih whoever said that Hitler should be included, I mean, i do not like the guy one bit, but really, was he that much different from Julius Caesar, or Alexander the Great (he should deff be a hero of the horn, perfect example of Hawkwing)

 

Hitler would be a HoTH, (unless of course, he was a follower of the Shadow, but he was just evil, not actually DO evil, he was cristian after all.) He tried to do what Caesar and A.T.G did (they definitly slaughtered people, most likely more than Hitler ever did, and were more cruel) So yeah, even though he was bad, his military prowess and such deserve acknowledgement

[farthammer]

Alexander and Julius Caesar belonged to eras so far in the past that I doubt hardly anyone goes about life thinking of them being Heroes.  Hitler is not one, because no one really thinks of him as such with the exception of various fringe groups.  I think that is one of the prerequisites to be the type of hero that exists in the WoT universe (and the real world in many cases).

[WWWwombat]

Jeanne d'Arc

[Barid Bel Medar]

Ill not argue that based on that fact, Hitler should be a HotH, (I certainly wouldnt want him to be)

 

But I find your reasons for being a Hero (people thinking you are one) precarious.

 

How many people does it take to think you are a hero before you become one?

 

Does it have to be a certain type of people?

 

What exactly is a "hero"? And how does one judge this?

 

Hawkwing certainly wasnt considered a Hero by many, many people. AS didnt like him, nobles didnt like him, who decides who a hero is?

 

One person somewhere may consider Hitler a Hero (pity that soul who actually does) but does their claim mean any less than anothers?

 

Is our own interpretation of a Hero the "correct" one? The morality and nature of a Hero is based on social politics, so who is to say we are correct?

 

LTT was hated by almost everyone of the Thrid Age, yet he is still a hero.

 

Hawkwings "conquest" wasnt really heroic? He wasnt liberating anything, just adding to his empire.

 

Remember that the Horn pre-dates the AoL, heroes from past ages are still tied to the horn, even when noone even remembers them, so how can people judge them heroes or not?

 

So I doubt your assumption that people have to see them as heroes is correct, thus, I base my statement that Alexander, Caesar and Hitler could possibly be heroes because what they did was extraordinary for a normal human being, liked or not.

[Bob T Dwarf]

Ummmm, military prowess????  Really????

 

If it weren't for Hitler and all the utterly stoooopid decisions he made, Germany would have won the war in Europe.  He doesn't qualify on any level.

[Knobs Mahoney]

Chairman Mao...lol

[Barid Bel Medar]

Ummmm, military prowess????  Really????

 

If it weren't for Hitler and all the utterly stoooopid decisions he made, Germany would have won the war in Europe.  He doesn't qualify on any level.

 

Before he made those stupid decisions, he was winning. He lusted for power, over everything, his military prowess had nothing to do with that, it was simply that he bit off more than he could chew.

 

The same could be said with Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, even Hawkwing.

[Bob T Dwarf]

He actually stopped winning when he finally overplayed the political game by invading Poland, provoking a Declaration of War by England and France.  Then after his armies, in spite of his blundering, secured France and the Low Countries for him, he sealed his own and Germany's fate by turning his back on England and invading Russia.  It was all downhill from there and every subsequent decision he made only made things worse.

 

Hitler was a disaster on every level.

[Barid Bel Medar]

He actually stopped winning when he finally overplayed the political game by invading Poland, provoking a Declaration of War by England and France.  Then after his armies, in spite of his blundering, secured France and the Low Countries for him, he sealed his own and Germany's fate by turning his back on England and invading Russia.  It was all downhill from there and every subsequent decision he made only made things worse.

 

Hitler was a disaster on every level.

 

Ill not argue in defence of him. I understand that prejudice distorts the image of people, and nothing can sway otherwise.

 

Remember that most of the films and media on WW2 is created by Jews. Now I have nothing against them, but do you really expect them to write an accurate history? Its like expecting a woman whos child was murdered write the history of the murderer accurately. Its not going to happen. You would expect nothing less, nor can u grudge them the fact, but it doesnt make it accurate.

 

Anyway, Ill say no more. I dont care to argue for a monster, I just think the facts should be presented how they are, not twisted by prejudice.

[farthammer]

Well there's no Hero regulation, it's not very easy to the who the why and the how many because there is no single criteria and no single person that determines any of this.  I think of WoT as an exploration into myths and legends, both from the perspective of simply observing legendary people and the POV of that particular legend.

 

Hawkwing himself was not a perfect hero at all the last time he was spun out, but his legend as a champion of commoners persists, his legend survived through a lot of people despite his flaws.  

 

I don't think it's a matter of one particular persons view being more than some other person, but more along the lines of observing what sort of legacy endures as time goes on.  Hitler's is overwhelmingly negative, particularly for things that only became common knowledge until after his death.

 

I think this is just becoming an exercise in taking a horrible historical figure, and trying to classify them into some new extreme direction, for fun or sport.  So I guess I probably won't talk about him any more at this point.

[Durinax]

any military conquester always bites off more than they can chew, the difference is that the smart ones once they have a significant loss stop and refirm the lands they conquered to raise new armies.

 

I think HItler would be more of a hero of the shadow due to his ordering mass executions on a mass level

 

as for the other two (Alex and julius their good) but I guess by this standard the Charlegmein or however you spell it would be as well and napoleon. I think there is a criteria we are missing.

 

it shouldnt just be a lust for power, it should be something just and against steep odds. This is why I think Fidel Castro should get the vote

[destroyer of rockets]

I would suggest King Arthur, but he's already tied to the Horn.

[Duskfire]

I'm not even sure why Hawkwing is a hero in the WoT world to be honest :P At the time he wasn't particularly well-liked by alot of people (particularly Aes Sedai, for obvious reasons) and all he did was conquer to add to his Empire. Why he should be a famed hero over people like Mabriam en Shareed is a bit strange, particularly since she was ta`veren also. And once he died, all his states fell into a giant civil war, so he didn't even leave a lasting legacy. Just a bit strange for everyone now to think of as a hero.

 

 

[Random Man]

He actually stopped winning when he finally overplayed the political game by invading Poland, provoking a Declaration of War by England and France.  Then after his armies, in spite of his blundering, secured France and the Low Countries for him, he sealed his own and Germany's fate by turning his back on England and invading Russia.  It was all downhill from there and every subsequent decision he made only made things worse.

 

Hitler was a disaster on every level.

 

Ill not argue in defence of him. I understand that prejudice distorts the image of people, and nothing can sway otherwise.

 

Remember that most of the films and media on WW2 is created by Jews. Now I have nothing against them, but do you really expect them to write an accurate history? Its like expecting a woman whos child was murdered write the history of the murderer accurately. Its not going to happen. You would expect nothing less, nor can u grudge them the fact, but it doesnt make it accurate.

 

Anyway, Ill say no more. I dont care to argue for a monster, I just think the facts should be presented how they are, not twisted by prejudice.

Bob T Dwarf actually gave a quite accurate historical account there that doesn't have anything to do with films or media. Hitler made so many strategic and tactical blunders that it's almost surprising it took as long as it did to defeat him, or rather I should say it's only because the Nazi war machine had the full force of Europe behind it, and was initially well-equipped and highly motivated, that it took so long to defeat.

 

The Nazi war machine was over-centralized to the point where high commanders feared to make decisions because they didn't want to upset Der Fuhrer, or they disagreed, squabbled, and scratched for power over the other children begging for daddy's attention (sound familiar? RJ made deliberate references to the DO allies and the Nazi machine in the past). One example was the failure to release reserve tank brigades in defense of Normandy because Hitler reserved authorization to send them into battle for himself, and on June 6 his staff refused to wake him up to give the order. Large numbers of tanks sat idle while Allied forces established a solid beachhead in France.

 

Invading Poland in itself wasn't a big nail in the coffin, but going to war with Britain ultimately meant that if the U.S. would enter the war in Europe, it would do so on Britain's side. Failing to subdue Britain, declaring war on the U.S. and invading Russia are the three major strategic blunders that went hand-in-hand to ensure Hitler's defeat. The U.S. might very well have simply continued to provide aid to Britain as it concentrated on the Japanese in the Pacific instead of entering into the European theater, had Hitler decided to leave the Japanese high and dry instead of following through with their agreement and declaring war on the U.S. Second, with the full force of Europe behind him, he could have feasibly taken the British Isles, but instead foolishly decided to turn against a former ally and invade Russia. This was probably the most significant strategic blunder due to the sheer number of poorly-equipped troops and valuable materiel that were flushed down the crapper on an additional, unnecessary, front.

 

Hitler was a terrible strategist. If you want to start a bar fight and you want to actually get out of it in one piece, you punch the guy on your left and make sure he's down before you do anything else. You don't slap the guy on your left and turn and hit the guy on your right, then spit on the bartender and give the finger to everybody else in the room. That's just right out.

[bobothebarbarian]

Ummmm, military prowess????  Really????

 

If it weren't for Hitler and all the utterly stoooopid decisions he made, Germany would have won the war in Europe.  He doesn't qualify on any level.

 

Before he made those stupid decisions, he was winning. He lusted for power, over everything, his military prowess had nothing to do with that, it was simply that he bit off more than he could chew.

 

The same could be said with Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, even Hawkwing.

the man could sway even a enemy into following him in the early years and won the harts of his nation just like a ta'veren, but then began injecting amphetamine in 1937 and became addicted soon after by the time he died his doctor was giving him like 5 or 6 injections a day. so by my definition he was crazier then LTT when he died and as for this

 

I'm not even sure why Hawkwing is a hero in the WoT world to be honest Tongue At the time he wasn't particularly well-liked by alot of people (particularly Aes Sedai, for obvious reasons) and all he did was conquer to add to his Empire. Why he should be a famed hero over people like Mabriam en Shareed is a bit strange, particularly since she was ta`veren also. And once he died, all his states fell into a giant civil war, so he didn't even leave a lasting legacy. Just a bit strange for everyone now to think of as a hero.

Read the BWB about him he never lusted for power he defended his own kingdom but all others attacked him except for tear which joined him voluntarily and almost every town and village had made some kind of monument to him even though he said he didn't want any made 

and as for my choice of a real hero I say Hannibal and Spartacus