Turn on thread page Beta

The UKL History Society (UKL HistSoc) watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sir Robert Peel for changing the role of politics in society and for being the greatest prime-minister of all time


    Sir Isaac Brock for singularly making an army which was 3 times as large as his own surrender without a fight (War of 1812 vs. USA)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    May I join?
    I am kind of interested in history.
    Anyone would like history in my class when the alternative is geography and RE.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think modern-day wise, perhaps Mao or Stalin. Early modern, I like the Medici dynasty, but particularly Lorenzo the Magnificent. In the Middle Ages, it would be some Norman chap, whose name escapes me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B00kwOrm)
    Since there are some other subject societies about, I thought it would be fitting to have a UKL History Society. I know a few people will be interested, so if you want to join, please reply or pm me. Everyone who's interested in History is welcome, not just those studying it at school or at university.
    Can I join? I'm taking my AP course in history next year. (University credit course) and I love history! (even though mostly what i've taken is american)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    im doing history (and english) at Birmingham
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jammyd)
    I think modern-day wise, perhaps Mao or Stalin. Early modern, I like the Medici dynasty, but particularly Lorenzo the Magnificent. In the Middle Ages, it would be some Norman chap, whose name escapes me.
    But why were they successful?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Alexander the Great.
    By the age of 33 he had defeated the largest army in the east and conquered the known world.

    Arrian describes Alexander: the strong, handsome commander with one eye dark as the night and one blue as the sky, always leading his army on his faithful Bucephalus. Alexander inherited from his father King Philip the best military formation of the time, the Macedonian Phalanx, armed with sarisses - the fearful five and half meter long lances. He was the first great conqueror who reached Greece, Egypt, Asia Minor, and Asia up to western India. He is famous for having created the ethnic fusion of the Macedonians and the Persians. From victory to victory, from triumph to triumph, Alexander created an empire which brought him eternal glory. He brought Greek ideas, culture and life style to the countries which he conquered, he did not make the countries that he conquered submit to the macedonain gods, they were alowed to keep their religion and their cultural beliefs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Everdawn)
    conquered the known world.
    Y do ppl use those words, wots the 'known world', known to who?? He didnt conquer Britain did he? U cant just slap the empire he built as the "known world" and the rest as the "unknown world"...

    HUz
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bOdOING2)
    Y do ppl use those words, wots the 'known world', known to who?? He didnt conquer Britain did he? U cant just slap the empire he built as the "known world" and the rest as the "unknown world"...

    HUz
    I believe the terms themselves go back to the times themselves. If that makes any sense. Basically, it refers to how far exploration had gone back then. Australia wasn't in the 'known world', yet I guess there must have been feeling among philosophers of the time that there was indeed more to the world than what was 'known'. Does that help?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Everdawn)
    ok since I see that ther hasnt been much reply. I think the topic should be who do think has been the most successful leader in history, that way it convers everyone's branches of history that they study.
    Military: Hannibal Barca or Leonidas
    Modern: Lyndon Baynes (sp) Johnson of Magaret Thatcher
    Ancient: The Quin (sp) pronounced 'chin' dynasty.
    Other: Marcus Auriellus (sp)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Modern: Lyndon Baynes
    Really?!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    poor Pattie Ferguson - he got pissed on
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jammyd)
    Really?!
    Hell yeah. LBJ is, in my own humble opinion, one of the three good American presidents of the 20th century. The others being FDR and Reagan (first term only) LBJ had the interests of the people in mind, and acted accordingly. All the while managing to cut through a hell of a lot of red tape in the process. An example being power lines stretching across the country and passing within 2 miles of a non-powered house, which was without power because it cost a tiny bit more for the companies to allow those living there a common luxury. LBJ put a stop to a lot of **** like that. In essence, he looked out for the little guy. The only drawback for LBJ, as I see it, is that he almost certainly had something to do with JFK being assassinated. But I guess the end more than justified the means.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    reagan was a right wing lunatic - reaganism was bad,


    LBJ - was a texan torn between advisers such as Macnamara, Bundy (pro war) and Ball (anti war) but he still was a bit of a silly person saying things like

    "we aint gonna get beat by a pissant country like that"

    and also,



    Patrick Ferguson was a great man
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think LBJ was a complete failure - this ably demononstrated by him not running for a second term. He just couldn't run the 'Great Society' and the Vietnam war.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    why does that make him a failure? no-one could run both at the same time - i don't believe he was a failure, that's the simplistic and easy interpretation based on the superficialities
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jammyd)
    I think LBJ was a complete failure - this ably demononstrated by him not running for a second term. He just couldn't run the 'Great Society' and the Vietnam war.
    I think it was typical American traits of 'hubris' that failed him with the Vietnam war. As for not running for a second term. He knew that he would not get re-elected. He did the right things in a country where that is all bar herecy, so he passed more legislation in one term than any other two presidents have managed to do in the 20th century. All this in the full knowledge that it wasn't the American way. As for the 'Great Society' please explain.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A failure because he didn't achieve much, if anything - his 'great society' failed, and the US didn't 'win' in Vietnam. They just ended up killing lots of people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sami_ThePeelite)
    reagan was a right wing lunatic - reaganism was bad,


    LBJ - was a texan torn between advisers such as Macnamara, Bundy (pro war) and Ball (anti war) but he still was a bit of a silly person saying things like

    "we aint gonna get beat by a pissant country like that"

    and also,



    Patrick Ferguson was a great man
    I notice you use the quote. It is the simple things that can often put something in the mind of the general public. Another would be the slogan... "All the way for LBJ" Still remembered some forty years on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    I think it was typical American traits of 'hubris' that failed him with the Vietnam war. As for not running for a second term. He knew that he would not get re-elected. He did the right things in a country where that is all bar herecy, so he passed more legislation in one term than any other two presidents have managed to do in the 20th century. All this in the full knowledge that it wasn't the American way. As for the 'Great Society' please explain.
    I actually feel really sorry for LBJ. He had some radical ideas, but got completely screwed by a war he hadn't started and couldn't get out of. I watched some documentary about it a while back, apparently he was wracked with guilt about the scores of young Americans dead. He ordered the Pentagon to wake contact him whenever any development took place; he was often getting up at 3am to hear about some ultimately inconsequential battle or other.

    Whether he was a great president or not, depends on your definition. He was a good man, but he didn't manage to realise his (admittedly great) ideals. Conversly, Reagan may have been pretty rotten in a lot of ways, but he managed to make Americans proud of themselves again after a decade which had seen the collapse in Vietnam, the oil crisis, economic problems, and the Iranian Embassy hostages. That is a real achievement, and I think deserves recognition.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: January 28, 2005

University open days

  • Norwich University of the Arts
    Undergraduate Open Days Undergraduate
    Thu, 1 Jan '70
  • Edge Hill University
    Faculty of Health and Social Care Undergraduate
    Thu, 1 Jan '70
  • Birmingham City University
    General Open Day Undergraduate
    Thu, 1 Jan '70
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.