History
 

I'm not a big history buff and hated studying history because the manner in which it was attempted to be taught to me was through memorization. Memorize dates, names, places.

Anyway, I have a question others more steeped in history can help me with. Out of all of the New empires, nations, countrys that were brung about by war, revolution or some type of act of aggression. What empire, nation or country was not first ruled by the leader of the aggression. Napoleon leads France, Ceasar leads the Roman Empire. War heroes..... generals ........ the leaders come back to rule what they conqured.

My question is.... is this basically true and if it is who were the exceptions.

Re: History
 

Para- a man after my own heart.:) I have been interested in that too recently. More for the continious cycle of rule by terror in the Middle East- anyway:

I don't believe any long standing large civilization present or fallen has come about without aggression. Smaller early nomadic congregations (Paleolithic and Neolithic) were led by wisdom and age but when agriculture and settling came to a land, people followed for a reason. The first known large civilization(s)- around Mesopotamia (between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers) were ruled by fear and intimidation through terror and the rumors that instilled that fear. If you look up King Sargon, you will see what I mean. It is human nature, the tactics of Sargon and other leaders were practiced because there wasn't media to broadcast the word and traveling large distances to speak to your people was difficult- it was about ruling people and keeping the only known land and agriculture under that rule. Later on (exploration maturing) it was the occupation and cultivation of new land and/or common currency- such as precious metals, spices and stones- for the people - or strictly civil imperialism. And let's not forget religion, interestingly those that decide to look up Sargon should note his story sounds an awful lot like someone in the bible but we won't go there.;)

Edit- evolution, revolutions, media and overall intelligence have made aggressive rule in present times inutile - yet aggressive tactics are still needed to protect peoples from the areas which have not come from under it.

Assuming that there is no land that has been occupied by the same peoples and customs for 10 thousand years- Prolly not. Though, (thinking of long standing Aboringines of regions) Australia was not formed by war and it's settlers did not fight the native peoples. They obtained Independence gradually and only knew war from WWI- present and really none of their own. Maybe Australia.:)

(I haven't had my coffee yet so I'm a little crusty/confused- I may edit more later :D)

Re: History
 

PS- it is all because you all had women bound up in the house or caves with babies. It would have been a lot different if we were revered for something other than our bodies and home-skeels.

But then again- if you think about it- we have ruled the world since the beginning of time and will continue to do so- most with a certain control. :D

Re: History
 

But we revere the T&A for their wheeling skills :D

Re: History
 

As you should.:D

Re: History
 

George Washington and the United States is the only one I am aware of.

Re: History
 

When Mario conquers Super Mario World, he doesn't rule that land. He just lives there.

Re: History
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by PARAGON Out of all of the New empires, nations, countrys that were brought about by war, revolution or some type of act of aggression. What empire, nation or country was not first ruled by the leader of the aggression. Napoleon leads France, Ceasar leads the Roman Empire. War heroes..... generals ........ the leaders come back to rule what they conquered. …

George Washington was the Commander in Chief of the Continental Forces during the American Revolution. Thus, he arguably was the “leader of the aggression.” I believe he basically had the public backing to undertake the equivalent of monarchial powers after the Revolution, but, in one of the greatest acts in world history, chose to be merely President of the Confederation. Most historians believe that the Founding Fathers created the presidency with Washington in mind. Washington was elected unanimously by the Electoral College in 1789, and he remains the only person ever to be elected president unanimously (a feat which he duplicated in the 1792 election). I think it’s fair to say that he was our first “ruler” – though he admirably showed tremendous restraint.

Also, the answer to your question depends on the definitions of “empire, nation or country.” Napoleon led France, but “France” was “brought about” long before Mr. Bonaparte was a twinkle in his great, great, great, great grandmother’s eye. France (which I personally define as “crap” – though that is neither here nor there) arose from Gaul, which, after the fall of the Roman Empire coalesced into the Frankish Kingdom (which became a part of the Charlemagne’s Carolingian Empire) and back again with the division of Charlemagne's Empire into East Francia, Middle Francia and Western Francia. Western Francia approximated the area occupied by modern France. The Nation of “France” was certainly around by the rise of the Capetian dynasty at the end of the first millenium A.D. Even if you segregate Revolutionary/Empirical/Napoleonic France from the rest of Froggy history, I’m not sure if you could say that Napoleon was the “leader of the aggression” we know as the French Revolution. He had limited military commands (i.e., not in command of the bulk of the French forces) until 10 years after the storming of the Bastille. In fact, he spent the first four years of the Revolution in Corsica, until he was forced to flee to France in 1793.

In other words, in my view, the United States was more ruled by the leader of its revolutionary aggression than was Napoleonic France. Napoleon just came in and kicked a$$ after the nation was already established. Just my $0.02.

By way of edit: Napoleon also kicked butt with his commands before 1799, but he was not, until thne in command of all or even a majority of French forces.

Re: History
 

Napoleon just went apesh1t.:D

IMO Washington and the US were aggressors to some degree not to the people they wanted to rule though. The United states came about through many wars and land disputes. Christopher Columbus chopped off hands of Native Americans in the beginning etc.. Then we had the natives, English, the Mexicans (Spanish) and the French to beat down. We kinda violently uprised.

Yeah, Washington was awesome, the most buff president we ever had- big time hero. Yet he wanted the "US President" to be noble and knew that the people and the world were watching. He came up with the name - "Mr. President" as opposed to "your excellency" or something, yet he thought that shaking hands with anyone would be a disgrace to the position. And stepping down after his second term was pretty darn noble- love him. :) But yeah, once the democracy was born- (which was an old concept) we never ruled our people with intimidation and terror.

Re: History
 

I don't hold this as clearly true. He chose to end it and go back home once the fighting was over.

Washington resigned his commission as the Commander in Chief and was a citizen for a few years before being elected president. He went before the Continental Congress and resigned by laying down his sword.

Again, bear with my lack of historical knowledge, but Napoleon was bent on a revolt for personal gain, is my understanding. Which is why I was mentioning revolution.

The point of my question is, how many and what countries or whatever existed after aggression where the leader of the aggression was not the ruler. In other words, it was a selfish leadership, unlike in George Washington's case.

This is not a trick question or anything.... it's an honest question.

Re: History
 

I think that the point of your question, if I understand it correctly, is something like:
In what instance was there:
(a) A violent overthrow of a nation's government; and
(b) The instigators of the violent takeover didn't not impose themselves as absolute rulers in the aftermath.

There probably aren't many. For one, we were the first real democracy in thousands of years. So, you can rule out much before 1776 for the simple fact that deposed governments before then were pretty much always replaced by an authoritarian ruler (monarch, dictator, emperor, etc ...). Usually, the guys who undertook the risk and effort to fight and unseat a sovereign ruler took power for themselves. Expansionism has been an unwavering principle of human history until very recently.
There might be a few examples.
(1) Although not as noble or novel as the American revolutionaries, the National Salvation Front forcibly deposed and executed the President of Romania, Nicolae Ceauşescu, in December 1989. They then basically took over things, but held democratic elections in the summer of 1990. Granted, the NSF won the elections, but, by all accounts, they were fair elections. So, not terribly dissimilar to the G.W. scenario where he commanded revolutionary forces and then became the resulting nation’s first president in short order.
(2) In A.D. 41, the leadership of the Roman Praetorian Guard (including Praetorian commander Cassius Chaerea) assassinated Emperor Caligula. Then, when members of the Roman Senate sought reinstatement of the Republic (pre-Caesar), the Praetorian leadership installed Claudius on the throne. Claudius was (wrongly) considered a dunce, and perhaps the Praetorian Guard (again wrongly) thought they could control them. They figured a controllable simple-minder Emperor was much better for them than the repercussions they would face if the Republic returned (loss of status, power, and perhaps their lives). In any event, The Praetorian Guard were the aggressors, and Claudius became the Ruler. He quickly consolidated power and imposed his will on the Praetorian Guard not the other way around. Thus, while the violent aggressors—the Praetorian Guard leadership--tried to take the power for themselves, and although they did, at least, retain their imperial powers, Claudius, who quickly came to control them, ruled Rome.

Not sure those count, and there are probably some others, but generally, the guys who do the deposing do the ruling and do so absolutely -- pretty much throughout history.

Re: History
 

Yeah, that's what I am getting at. The leader of the army tends to yield control of the country

Re: History
 

Yes... But everytime Mario Brothers came out again, Bowser was ruler again. Perhaps Mario should have taken a more vidal role to ensure peace.:D

Re: History
 

Very True.... I wonder how many wars have been started because some guy had his tongue hanging out going, yes dear, yes dear, yes dear.

If you believe the world would be better if ruled by a woman look up Catherine the Great, female Zarist of Russia. She presided over something like 7 wars (I think that number is correct) and during her rule most Russian men dropped one class.

This does not mean I think a female ruler is a bad thing ( Unless it's Hillary). It just means I think a female ruler is no better or worse than a male.

Re: History
 

Re: History
 

Yeah, and wasn't Xena, Warrior Princess a limey too?

Re: History
 

No way. She had to be like the only dark haired Swede or something. She was a big bitch.

Hawk, you come up with anything else? It's personal. I am curious as to the main motivators of acquistions, revolts etc. for the leaders and also does the idea of "ruling" the country afterwards have some effects on battle plans.

Or, who wasn't a very good leader but chose good generals. There seems to be one that sticks out in my mind but I can't put a name to it.

I'm just looking for somethings to lookup and read up on

Re: History
 

What the difference? They all sound the same.

Re: History
 

Not yet. I'll try to think about it more over the weekend.

Re: History
 

An extract from an Aboriginal history paper

"European settlers with more advanced technology arrived in 1788 from England and began re-colonizing.

They got on rather badly with the locals. Two primitive cultures based on force and exlptation (and nothing else in common) were bound to clash badly.
The European settlers were embarrassed by this, and the English ordered the Australian Governor to make a treaty with the native population. He was unable to do so, partly because of limited resources (life was not just brutish and short for the Aboriginal population) but mostly because there was no central Aboriginal authority to deal with. The Aborigines were in relatively small tribes, spoke many different languages and spent much of their surplus waring with each other. Negotiating with all of them was nearly impossible. The Local Governor reported this to his English command.
The English were embarrassed by this, and as a convenience they declared Australia 'Terra Nullius' (effectively uninhabited).
The European settlers passed many diseases to the Aborigines, who through their isolation for so long, had little resistance. In particular, two plagues of small-pox in 1792 and 1822 swept through the Aboriginal populations and wiped many of them out. There was also a plague of venereal disease, but many believe this was contracted from non-European fishermen in the north of Australia.
There was a low level war over a period of time. Aborigines would take sheep from local farmers (and eat them). Farmers would go and kill the Aborigines.
The area became the nation of Australia in 1901, and though it was basically democratic, Aborigines were not eligible to vote. They were not classified as 'Australians'.
The last mass-killing of Aborigines was in 1926 after a European-Australian was reported killed by an Aborigine, and a local-policemen collected a gang of people to kill the local tribe. The more senior authorities were embarrassed by this, and took steps to prevent it reoccurring. Generally Aborigines were encouraged to move to 'settlements' away from the European infrastructure where they would cause less trouble."

In fact Aboriginies were not given the right to call themselves Australians until 1967.

So that counts Australia out then.

Re: History
 

The British Empire - I think.

Re: History
 

You just made me realize.... I have no idea how The British Empire formed, yet.

Re: History
 

We needed curry. The rest is history:D

Re: History
 

x2