Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
He got lavatories named after him.
Leaders too stupid to live
- Thread starter CornPlanter
- Start date
He got lavatories named after him.
It's been de rigueur to say that about all of the Spanish Habsburgs from Felipe III onward; for none of them is it the whole truth, if it is the truth at all.
He managed to avoid losing the barons' war (which took some actual military ability), although he died before the victory could be completed. It's kind of remarkable that he managed to do that correctly while completely cocking up the campaigning in France.Arakhor said:
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,087
But did he really lose support among the military (and aristocracy - every single general in Rome was from the senatorial families, it seems), or just among those in Italy? If he had managed (wanted?) to really ditch Rome, he might have survived in power.
Here.
Well, he apparently toyed with the option of going East to continue the fight (though that might not have actually been true) but either abandoned it as impracticable or simply decided to give up.
Either way, "public support" was irrelevant to the decision.I always wondered where that name came from. How did it come about?
Also, on-topic, John at least kept the kingdom's finances in some sort of order, which is more than could be said for his brother.
He also lost the Crown Jewels in the Wash very famously and then died of a surfeit of palfreys (if you believe 1066 And All That) so that his son Henry III had to be crowned with a simple gold circlet.
The story is that it was a surfeit of peaches; the reality was dysentery, I think. Not a good way to go. Reading one of my ancestors' wartime letters from the Mud March about his dysentery has been kinda squicky.
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
That reminds me, the Hadrian's Way passes a statue to Edward I in a village called Burgh-by-Sands. It informs anyone who passes that Longshanks died nearby whilst waiting to cross the Solway Firth on the way to campaign against the Scots but politely avoids the subject of just how he died.
uat2d
ಠ_ಠ
El-rei Sebastião, for making the Portuguese Empire on its peak lose its independence to Spain by dieing in Morocco in a stupid incursion into the desert with everyone in full gear and not even giving orders to attack when the army was surrounded.
How smart could someone be, to charge into battle against the moors in their territory without any experience and leaving no heirs to the throne behind??
Oh right, he was a religious fanatic. Probably more than anything Civ4's Izzy could ever be.
How smart could someone be, to charge into battle against the moors in their territory without any experience and leaving no heirs to the throne behind??
Oh right, he was a religious fanatic. Probably more than anything Civ4's Izzy could ever be.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Not really, at least not compared to people actually labeled as "fanatics" during that era. He was 24 years old, young and reckless, and wanted his share of the glory. That was probably a bad idea, but the rest of his reign shows that he wasn't an idiot by any means; if he hadn't died in a military blunder, he'd likely be remembered as one of the better Iberian monarchs.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,087
And you know what? He probably was a victim of two pedophile jeusit priests, who also infected him with gonorrhea sometime after wrestling him away from the protection of his grandmother, at age 8.
Why exactly he refused to fulfill his obligation, as king, to ensure the succession, will probably never be clear. It might be that he turned out just to be so gay that he couldn't get it up near a woman. I'm not going to blame him for that. But it was not an excuse for avoiding marriage and getting the queen impregnated somehow. It might just be the disease, but it didn't seem to stop him from being found "entangled" with both nobles and slaves whom he fancied (quoting Mel Brooks - it's good to be king). Most likely it was a paranoid misogyny inflicted upon him by those jesuits child-rapist tutors who would try to manipulate him for the rest of his life, in order to better ensure their own influence over him.
Anyway, another thing I can blame the Jesuits for. Pedophile priests have been causing trouble for centuries.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Two things in life are certain: death and rambling, incoherent religious bigotry from innonimatu.
Moderator Action: Infracted for flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Moderator Action: Infracted for flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,087
By all means, go and read the research about that king. Here (a pedophile in the palace) is one which collected information from several portuguese sources, conveniently published in english. The author is somewhat suspect (I happen to disagree with his analysis of sources and conclusions about Henry the Navigator in a recent book) but his hypothesis about king Sebastian of Portugal is shared by many recent portuguese historians.
And yes, I ramble a lot about the hypocrisy of the catholic church regarding sex. Condemn and forgive, first instill guilt for what is naturally for human beings a biological, hard-wired imperative, and then place themselves as an institution as the sole possible relievers of that guilt (confession, penance, indulgences). That has always clearly been an unscrupulous method to increase the church's power. The sale of indulgences is gone, but the rest of that devious strategy stands still in use.
So they deserve all the rants I can put together and then some more, they have been peddling their sick doctrine for one and a half millenia, at least ever since that Augustine of Hippo got his deranged view of mankind as carriers of sin made into church doctrine, ruining "god only would know" how many lives - if I may borrow the expression.
Moderator Action: Infracted for trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Also, provoking a Vietnamese invasion that threw him out of Phnom Penh, and eventually arrested and confined on the orders of his own Party.
That said, he lasted very long time with his band of guerrilas in the jungles after his ouster (supported by China, Thailand and the U.S. of A.)
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Psychoanalysis of people who lived before psychology existed, based primarily upon what the subject's enemies wrote about him. Why, this method is so surely precise that we'll doubtlessly arrive at an air-tight conclusion. Nevertheless, I read through that document you linked to, and aside from explicitly stating on several occasions that there's no clear evidence for any sure conclusion, and indeed coming up with several possible reasons for his erratic behavior (upbringing, genetics, social atmosphere), you've jumped to the one with the least evidence according to the article itself. If you're going to not put any effort into justifying your own hateful views, keep them to yourself, thanks.
In order to convince anybody of hypocrisy or deviousness, you're going to have to demonstrate them as opposed to telling us that they're there and assuming that's all that's necessary. The Church says we should have guilt for the things we do wrong -- I hope you have no objection here, otherwise you're telling me that the natural or best state of mankind is psychopathic. The Church also tells us that there's a divine mechanism in which for our sins to be forgiven. That's also a great thing, considering if that mechanism didn't exist, our sins would be permanent and unforgivable. In this, then, the Church gives us the opportunity to be infused with God's divine grace in order to live better and happier. Guilt is a necessary stage in this, since it leads us to penance, and is also an in-built deterrent from committing the same errors uninhibited.
So, you've told me the Church is bad, and then rattled off reasons why the Church is great. Would you care to try again?
It doesn't ruin lives. Rather, if you'd like me to share the amount of lives it's saved, I'd be happy to read off the canon of saints to you; or, if you'd like something more personal, I can tell you about all of the people who are happy solely because of the role God has in their lives, as well as the people who are miserable and nihilistic because they've never attempted to live as such. What I can't tell you is of any people who, after being properly educated about the Catholic faith, are left unhappy because the Church has made them too guilty (which does happen, but is a result of misunderstandings; often because they read texts by, or listen to, people who don't know what they're talking about).
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,087
And he lived far, far too long. That's the problem, most of those discussed here were too damaging to live, but they actually manage to stay in power long enough to cause damage. Not too stupid to live, unfortunately.
Similar threads
