Seven Greatest French People of All Time

[ConanKND]

Great, Steph! It's a very good idea, so...

Greatest Military : You know who (N.B.)
Greatest Philosopher : I say Voltaire, maybe Descartes or Pascal?
Greatest Statesman : Richelieu
Greatest Scientist : Pasteur or The Curies? I think Pasteur
Greatest Writer : Jules Verne
Greatest Doctor : Maybe I'll replace it with Greatest Contemporary Figure, since I really want to do de Gaulle.

And maybe Greatest Mathematician just for Pascal.

 

[Plotinus]

No way was Voltaire a better philosopher than any of the others mentioned there. He wasn't really a philosopher at all (even though he was one of the philosophes, but that's not quite the same thing). Descartes is easily the greatest French philosopher, although I think Abelard comes quite close.

 

[Steph]

Great, Steph! It's a very good idea, so...

Greatest Military : You know who (N.B.)
Greatest Philosopher : I say Voltaire, maybe Descartes or Pascal?
Greatest Statesman : Richelieu
Greatest Scientist : Pasteur or The Curies? I think Pasteur
Greatest Writer : Jules Verne
Greatest Doctor : Maybe I'll replace it with Greatest Contemporary Figure, since I really want to do de Gaulle.

And maybe Greatest Mathematician just for Pascal.

If you really want to stick to 7:

Great Military : Napoleon Bonaparte
Great Head of state : De Gaulle
Great Minister : Richelieu
Great Philosopher : Descartes
Great Scientist : Pascal
Great Writer : Jules Verne
Great Doctor : Pasteur.

I suggest you get rid of the "greatest" and use inly "great" so you don't need to argue why you think Pascal is before Curie for instance.
You just say that you have pick one Frenchman for each field, and one you think was interesting, not necessary the greatest.

 

[Sofista]

Ok, let's try this way:

Great General : Napoleone Bonaparte
Great Head of state : Charles De Gaulle
Great Minister : Talleyrand
Great Philosopher : Voltaire
Great Scientist : Louis Pasteur
Great Writer : Marcel Proust
Great Artist : Claude Monet.

 

[Mirc]

Great Military : Napoleon Bonaparte
Great Head of state : De Gaulle
Great Minister : I have no idea
Great Philosopher : Descartes
Great Scientist : Pascal
Great Writer : Jules Verne
Great Doctor : I have no idea

 

[sydhe]

Great General : Napoleon Bonaparte
Great Head of state : Henry IV
Great Minister : Richelieu
Great Philosopher : Descartes
Great Scientist : Louis Pasteur
Great Writer : Voltaire
Great Artist : Claude Monet.

 

[Evie]

Ok, let's try this way:

Great General : Napoleone Bonaparte
Great Head of state : Charles De Gaulle
Great Minister : Talleyrand
Great Philosopher : Voltaire
Great Scientist : Louis Pasteur
Great Writer : Marcel Proust
Great Artist : Claude Monet.

I definitely agree with your taste in artists, but Talleyrand? No way is he more deserving than Richelieu.

Voltaire is also questionable, for reasons outlined by Plotinus, and also for reason that he invented/popularized so many urban legends about royal and medieval France that it's not even funny. Including a non-negligible part of the early character assassination against the aforementioned Richelieu. (And before any of you blame Dumas - it's the filmmakers that did the hit job. Dumas gave a much more nuanced portrayal of Richelieu : ruthless, but inherently dedicated to France. In the books, it's D'Artagnan and friends that spends half their time on somewhat dubious to out-and-out treasonous activities).

Really, back to Voltaire, he wasn,t so much a philosopher as the Michael Moore of the enlightenment.

 

[Emperor2]

You seem to be suggesting that although Hitler was bad because of his racism and genocide, his militarism and aggression weren't bad. Which is a bit alarming. Yes, Hitler was a good leader to the extent that he salvaged the German economy; but making Germany a world power and conquering Europe are the actions of a bad leader; these are not points in his favour. And yes, of course Napoleon was not as bad as Hitler in that he didn't do anything like the Holocaust; but I didn't say he was - I simply said that militarism and aggression are not good traits in a leader. Most people don't regard them as good traits in Hitler and I don't see why they should be good traits in Napoleon. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "it was the early 1800's" (which it wasn't anyway, it went on until 1815); do deaths then matter less? And you can certainly find many great leaders in history who weren't warmongers. They are just less prominent in history books.

Hitlers militarism and agression were bad, but mostly (not compleatly) because of his government, and his time era. First the govt - I doubt that needs explanation. The time era - this is a time in european history when cultural borders are being respected. In Napoleons time era, it was take what you can get, and in napoleons time era, a unified europe, if gotten at a price, would have been better in the long run. And when I say early 1800's, I mean anything before 1850. And like I said, its not that death doesn't matter less; its the policy of warmongering and its acceptability.

 

[Maniac]

You're doing it all wrong. It should be:

Great General
Great Engineer
Great Merchant
Great Prophet
Great Scientist
Great Artist
Great Spy

 

[REDY]

Hitlers militarism and agression were bad, but mostly (not compleatly) because of his government, and his time era. First the govt - I doubt that needs explanation. The time era - this is a time in european history when cultural borders are being respected. In Napoleons time era, it was take what you can get, and in napoleons time era, a unified europe, if gotten at a price, would have been better in the long run. And when I say early 1800's, I mean anything before 1850. And like I said, its not that death doesn't matter less; its the policy of warmongering and its acceptability.

Death of over 70 million, Germany loped and divided, reputation of Germany tarnished to next century...there are not many worse leaders

 

[Plotinus]

Also, "early 1800s" means 1800-1805. If you meant anything before 1850, you should have said "early nineteenth century". The nineteenth century is not the same thing as the 1800s.

 

[GuitarHero]

Voted "Charles De Gaulle" 'cuz he saved France from the Nazis.(sorta)

 

[Sofista]

I definitely agree with your taste in artists, but Talleyrand? No way is he more deserving than Richelieu.

Voltaire is also questionable, for reasons outlined by Plotinus, and also for reason that he invented/popularized so many urban legends about royal and medieval France that it's not even funny. Including a non-negligible part of the early character assassination against the aforementioned Richelieu. (And before any of you blame Dumas - it's the filmmakers that did the hit job. Dumas gave a much more nuanced portrayal of Richelieu : ruthless, but inherently dedicated to France. In the books, it's D'Artagnan and friends that spends half their time on somewhat dubious to out-and-out treasonous activities).

Really, back to Voltaire, he wasn,t so much a philosopher as the Michael Moore of the enlightenment.

Eh, I agree that Richelieu was probably more important, but without Talleyrand France at the congress of Vienna could have been torn to pieces - at least best diplomat, agree? Otherwise, Colbert was another important figure.
Also, when I read minister, I understand "not head of state", and Richelieu ran the show by himself for a long time.

Voltaire, yeah, surely less a philospohers' philosopher than Descartes. Still as I see it one can still call to Voltairian principles easier than to Cartesian ones, meaning that while V. might have played overall a less important part in the history of thought, the part he played is still very much actual and influential. Also, he was the archetypical maître à penser, in the meaning of the engagé intellectual.

 

[Evie]

If you count Richelieu as a Head of State, then he edges out De Gaulle instead.

 

[LightSpectra]

That's backwards, though. Louis XIII was head of state and Richelieu was head of government. The Cardinal is sometimes retrospectively viewed as the first prime minister in history.

 

[Evie]

Yes, I agree - that makes Richelieu a minister, and he edges out Talleyrand in that role.

As for Talleyrand's diplomatic title...he did well at Vienna, but how well is debatable (ie, how much the coalition actually wanted to tear France apart).

 

[Steph]

If you count Richelieu as a Head of State, then he edges out De Gaulle instead.

It depends what you count.

If you mean "the guy who was organizing the country and make it run", I would say Richelieu tops De Gaulle.
If you mean "the guy who represent the country and leads it", I would say De Gaulle tops Richilieu.

Hence my minister-head of state difference

 

[Evie]

Yes, I actually agree. Sofista's the one who wanted to categorize the cardinal as a HoS.

As for leadership...well, yes, De Gaulle was much more of a national leader than Richelieu, but he is, IMO, overrated.

 

[Emperor2]

Death of over 70 million, Germany loped and divided, reputation of Germany tarnished to next century...there are not many worse leaders

If England and Russia had stood aside...
Plus, think: Had Napoleon conquered Europe, there would have been no WWI or WWII or Communist bloc to happen. A democratic revolution would have come oute eventually and Europe could have been united under one flag. Now, that can't and shouldn't happen. Cultural borders have been to tossed to allow it any more. But then, there was hope.

 

[REDY]

If England and Russia had stood aside...
Plus, think: Had Napoleon conquered Europe, there would have been no WWI or WWII or Communist bloc to happen. A democratic revolution would have come oute eventually and Europe could have been united under one flag. Now, that can't and shouldn't happen. Cultural borders have been to tossed to allow it any more. But then, there was hope.

I think that even Napoleon was able handle "Euro-empire", split-up would be only question of time after his death. If his succesor would try make some sort of republic, there should be only bigger mess. We should have seen it many times before, losers still have influence to make it, they only have to wait for right time. If Napoleon realy conquered England and Russia, he still havent chance hold them long time. He should use time to estalbish more power in western Germany and Northern Italy, but that all.