 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Most popular historical losers...
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Mar 06 - 07:41 PM While it is the winners who are usually most popular after great historical conflicts, and the losers are usually condemned or looked down upon in some way...there are some notable exceptions to that. So, who are the most popular figures from lost battles and/or lost causes? Some great examples: Robert E. Lee, Crazy Horse, Stonewall Jackson, "Jeb" Stuart, Erwin Rommel (the "Desert Fox"), Manfred Von Richthofen (the Red Baron). Who would you add to the list? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: number 6 Date: 27 Mar 06 - 07:51 PM Charles Edward Stuart, called the Young Pretender or Bonnie Prince Charlie. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: number 6 Date: 27 Mar 06 - 07:55 PM Maybe I should retract my contribution, as Bonnie Prince Charlie does live on with each bottle of Drambuie consumed ... but then again he did die a drunk didn't he. OK ... put him back on the list of most popular historical losers. sIc |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: number 6 Date: 27 Mar 06 - 07:56 PM sorry .. sIx ... no sIc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Peace Date: 27 Mar 06 - 08:00 PM George Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Bill D Date: 27 Mar 06 - 08:04 PM he's popular? Where? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: SINSULL Date: 27 Mar 06 - 08:07 PM Pyrrhus - won every battle but lost the war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Charley Noble Date: 27 Mar 06 - 08:13 PM They haven't even been born yet, the poor suckers! Although I'm not feeling very well myself... Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Elmer Fudd Date: 27 Mar 06 - 08:26 PM Masada. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Desdemona Date: 27 Mar 06 - 08:43 PM Charles I, because (to quote 'Macbeth'): "nothing in his life became him like the leaving of it"! ~D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Mar 06 - 08:46 PM The Greeks at Marathon who held back hundreds of thousands of Persians for a whole day and died to the last man doing it...what a way to go! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: frogprince Date: 27 Mar 06 - 08:49 PM Ya mean nobody beat me to mentioning the defenders of the Alamo? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: frogprince Date: 27 Mar 06 - 08:53 PM When I was a kid, George Armstrong Custer would definitely have been on the list. Now he is generally just listed listed under "losers". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Mar 06 - 08:53 PM I was thinking of them too, but didn't say it. Santa Anna lost too, but he is despised just about everywhere. The man had a serious personality disorder. He had less humility than Clinton Hammond. ;-P |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Desdemona Date: 27 Mar 06 - 08:58 PM If we can include those who've made a come-back, aren't we leaving out a certain "has been"...?! ;~) ~D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Mar 06 - 09:01 PM You mean Shatner? Or Joe Clark? Joe Clark was unfortunate enough to be dubbed "Joe Who?" by the Canadian press and electorate...really sad! He was, after all, a decent and conscientious man. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Bobert Date: 27 Mar 06 - 09:05 PM Connecticut!!! What, 24 hours ain't long enough to qualify for "historical"??? Tell UConn folks that 'cause when it come to this year's Final Four, UConn is h-i-s-t-o-r-y, 86-84... Go Pats!!! Oh yeah, other loosers: *Napolean makes the Top Ten Cut... *Andrew Johnson is definately Top Ten material... *Remember Julius Ceasar? He's gotta be ranked... *How 'bout Col. Custer and his boys???... *Sonny Liston vrs. Casious Clay... How long that last??? *Cornwallis din't get that last "W" he needed either... *And how about Spiro Agnew??? *And, how could I forget, our very own MG should certainly get into the Final For... Awww, jus' funnin'... MG is a fine feller... GUEST G??? No here's a different story... (How many is that??? Ten yet... BTW, I don't consider Stonewall Jackson a loser... He was outgunned but he was never out witted... Stuart and Lee were honorable losers but Thomas Jackson? Nah! Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Severn Date: 27 Mar 06 - 09:06 PM The French? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Desdemona Date: 27 Mar 06 - 09:08 PM Despite the fact that my partner is an ex-pat Canadian who votes in the elections and everything, Shatner was the one (as ever) on my mind... ~D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Mar 06 - 09:11 PM Pay attention to the friggin' SCRIPT, you guys! I said popular losers! Bobert, you are right about Stonewall Jackson. The man only ever lost one rather small and insignificant battle (forget the name)...where he was so outnumbered that no one could have won it. Other than that, he whipped the damn Yankees all the way from Bull Run to Chancellorsville. Hell of a good general, was Thomas Jackson. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: bobad Date: 27 Mar 06 - 09:22 PM General Montcalm - I don't know how popular he is but he certainly is a loser. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Severn Date: 27 Mar 06 - 09:31 PM In the end....Your favorite Native American Tribal Chief in the Old West. Fill in the blank. Hell, maybe Native Americans as a whole would qualify. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Bill D Date: 27 Mar 06 - 09:40 PM indeed..Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce is both popular and honored...and BOY did he lose big! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Mar 06 - 10:06 PM Geronimo was another of those. And Sitting Bull. All of them, really. As for Montcalm, I think he was actually a very good general. He won plenty of battles, but he lost the last one, where both he and the British commander Wolfe were killed on the field. The battleship Bismark qualifies as a highly popular loser. It is probably the most popular subject of scale models of any warship in history...along with Japan's battleship Yamato...also a spectacularly big loser. Then there's the Titanic. And the Hood. To make it to the big leagues as a really famous ship, you almost HAVE to get sunk by something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Severn Date: 27 Mar 06 - 10:07 PM The American Forest-- (Whoops, I thought you said Poplar...) The Washington Senators--bad enough to be immortalized on Broadway and in the movies. The Incas, Aztecs and other former civilizations dug up by archeologists and put on display in museums for the tourists, with a special shout out to the Ancient Egyptians who got to have an "ology" named for them. But only the ones we'd actually pay good money to see. The Dodo--Long extinct, but still part of the language. I mean, when was the last time you either called someone or were called a Passenger Pigeon or a Great Auk? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: bobad Date: 27 Mar 06 - 10:09 PM The 1919 Chicago White Sox |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Bobert Date: 27 Mar 06 - 10:32 PM Screw you, Severn... The Senators were great... Oh, "popular" losers??? Hmmmmmmm? Sorry, Severn... Yeah, they didm lose alot but they did it might-up-'n-walkin'good... I remember going to thjeir games as a kid and Jimmy Peirsall was playing CF and folks would come to the park with rubber chickens and mess wid poor ol' Jimmy from the 50 cent seats out there in CF and, hey, you could set yer watch by it but sometime 'round the 7th inning, ol' jimmy would "crack" and he's be climbin' up the CF wall to fight wid the fans... Heck with baseball... That was before "baseball been very good to me"... That when Mickey Mantle was taking the subway to the games... But there was Jimmy scalin' the wall to duke it out with yet another heckler in the 50 cent seats... ... and everyone loved it... Din't matter what the scoreboard read... Hey, the Nats could have been down by 20 runs but there was one very mad man in CF scalin' the wall... Jimmy Peirsall is perhaps in the Tiop Ten of historic losers but, hey, folks paid out good money to see him scale a wall... Sometimes it takes time to seperate the winners from the losers... A little perspective thing... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: number 6 Date: 27 Mar 06 - 10:48 PM Add Robert Falcon Scott to the list. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Amos Date: 27 Mar 06 - 10:55 PM Yeah, I have to add a vote for Moctezuma, the Aztec Emperor. And I have always been fond of Benedict Arnold in this regard -- a smart and talented general who went to hell in a handbasket. Then there are all the martyrs: Kelly from Killarne, Wolfe Tone, Roddy McCorley, Nathan Hale ... maybe they don't qualify, despite their sacrifices, because they weren't losers in the sense LH means. Then there's George Rommel. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Bert Date: 27 Mar 06 - 10:59 PM Napoleon is probably more popular than he deserves. Even the history books claim that he lost the battle of Waterloo, when acually Wellington won it, and there is a difference. Little Hawk, I think that the battle you refer to should be Thermopolae Pass and not Marathon. The Greeks had a resounding victory at Marathon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: number 6 Date: 27 Mar 06 - 11:11 PM Another miitary hero who fell from from grace .. General Charles Gordon, also known as Chinese Gordon at the height of his popularity, to Gordon of Khartoum where his met his dreadful doom. (I appoligize, just had to throw that in) sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Dead Horse Date: 28 Mar 06 - 02:49 AM Hows about the French Foreign Legion? Its only the battles they lost that make them famous. But they do command a great deal of respect even among us Brits. And they lost in Viet Nam afore you Yanks even knew the place existed!!! As for fictional losers, my vote goes to the guy who signed up for Barrets Privateers :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Purple Foxx Date: 28 Mar 06 - 03:05 AM Thomas Paine,not only the most original thinker of his generation but also a man who practiced what he preached. In spite of which (because of which?) he seems to have been marginalised by history. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Big Al Whittle Date: 28 Mar 06 - 03:05 AM I've just been watching Ken Burns series about The Civil War (again). As you say, no end of talented charismatic losers in that wee fracas. as the series ends (every time I watch it) there is this almost palpable feeling of relief - Thank God, they did lose and the Union was saved. I suppose the big time losers are the ones whose names are mud in history. For example the guy who runs the Wyatt Earp historical webpage is called MacLelland, and a few months ago we were chatting online and I asked him if he were related to the civil war General. I think he almost bristled at the suggestion. And yet ....... Dale Carnegie's suggestion was that Lincoln never sent his his famous letter of reprimand to MacLelland because he realised the General had been under terrific strain and had experienced quite terrible and unprecendented battle scenes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Paul Burke Date: 28 Mar 06 - 03:14 AM Spartacus. Hannibal. The Six Hundred Spartans. The Light Brigade. Wat Tyler. King Harold. Joan of Arc, inventor of the Arc lamp. King Frederick and Queen Elizabeth of Bohemia. Llewellyn ap Gruffydd. The Minstrel Boy. The England Cricket Team. Zapata. Eugene McCarthy. Richard Trevithick. Tupac Ameru. Cetshwayo. Scotland. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Purple Foxx Date: 28 Mar 06 - 03:16 AM Joan of Arc invented the Arc lamp? I thought she was Noah's wife. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Emma B Date: 28 Mar 06 - 05:08 AM Boudicca Cleopatra there are an awful lot of English folk songs celebrating Napoleon! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Purple Foxx Date: 28 Mar 06 - 05:21 AM Napoleon's first act upon surrendering at Waterlloo was to demand British citizenship. Maybe all the folk songs were ultimately inspired by admiration of the sheer chutzpa of the guy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: sian, west wales Date: 28 Mar 06 - 05:58 AM Ummm. Define 'losers'? Seems to me that at least a few of the above may have lost a few battles but may have won at least some of what they hoped to achieve. Llewelyn in Paul Burke's list certainly 'lost' as did other Welsh Princes, Princesses and Chiefs but the concept of Wales as a nation owes a lot to them, regardless of the battle score card. I'm also thinking of someone like Romeo Dallaire, the Canadian Senator, who has been mentioned in Mudcat despatches in the past. If he were selecting sides for a game of Red Rover, I'd be honoured to be picked for his side. siân |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: GUEST,*daylia* Date: 28 Mar 06 - 06:29 AM The Toronto Maple Leafs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Paco Rabanne Date: 28 Mar 06 - 06:31 AM Bob Dylan. He will go down in history as a Donovan clone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: A Wandering Minstrel Date: 28 Mar 06 - 07:09 AM I'm not sure I would class the Light Brigade as "losers", true they took a terrible beating but they did in fact reach the russian guns and cause sufficient damage that the russian artillery was seriously reduced for the remainder of the battle. This was instrumental in allowing several follow-up infantry attacks to carry the Russian lines. If anyone lost out at Balaclava it was the Heavy Brigade who having repulsed a major cavalry attack earlier in the day with great gallantry were almost completely forgotten about in the ensuing events Oh! and the England Cricket team do win the occasional (ashes!) series |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: bobad Date: 28 Mar 06 - 07:49 AM That's a good one daylia. They certainly are popular in the "Leafs Nation" and on the CBC but the aren't winning too many popularity contests in the Ottawa area. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Kweku Date: 28 Mar 06 - 07:49 AM michael jackson a.k.a wacko jacko |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: kendall Date: 28 Mar 06 - 07:49 AM When "Stonewall" Jackson was killed, Robert E Lee said, "I've lost my right arm." He was so right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Purple Foxx Date: 28 Mar 06 - 07:51 AM In legal terms Michael Jackson is more of an unpopular winner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: GUEST,Whistle Stop Date: 28 Mar 06 - 08:03 AM There is certainly a legitimate question to be asked about how one defines "losers." However, I would suggest that Jesus Christ should rank high on the list. Given the plain facts of the matter (separated from conjecture, wishful thinking, and 2,000 years worth of "spin"), he could well be considered the loser in his final encounter with the Jewish and Roman authorities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Paul Burke Date: 28 Mar 06 - 08:09 AM How about the Earl of Uxbridge at the Battle of Waterloo? The Duke of Wellington saw him hit by a cannonball, and exclaimed, "By God, sir, you've lost your leg!" To which the Earl replied, "By God, sir, so I have!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Kweku Date: 28 Mar 06 - 08:14 AM Jesus Christ wasn't a political figurehead but dealt with spirituality so I know he is not a member of the "losers club".his name is still victorious after 2000years.He set out to redeem those who will listen to him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Mar 06 - 08:15 AM "it is the winners who are usually most popular after great historical conflicts, and the losers are usually condemned or looked down upon in some way." I'd question that. Perhaps it's a cultural thing and in some parts of the world that is the way people think, but it doesn't chime with my experience. The crucial thing is that in after years people tend to favour the underdog, and more times than not underdogs lose. When the occasional underdog actually pulls off a victory they still hold on to that preferred status. Victors who aren't underdogs in some sense don't make it as folk heroes very often. In fact I can't think of any who have. (Being killed in the hour of victory counts as being a kind of underdog.) ............................................... As for Santy Anna, shanty singers have always tended to award him the victory - "Santy Anna won the day and General Taylor ran away" - and to see him as a good lad, on the whole. That's consistent with recognising that, up against the USA, Mexico were the underdogs. (I know that it's sometimes sung the other way, but that's just latter day revisionism - I don't think there is any reason to believe that sailors ever sang about General Taylor winning the day, even if the brute facts of history say he did.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Wolfgang Date: 28 Mar 06 - 09:13 AM Raymond Poulidor. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: GUEST,DB Date: 28 Mar 06 - 09:22 AM How about Prince Lazar, of Serbia, who is credited with 'heroically' losing the Battle of Kosovo in 1389? According to Serbian tradition Lazar was supposed to have exchanged his 'earthly' kingdom for a 'heavenly' kingdom - and this was enough to make him a hero (doesn't make a lot of sense to me but I'm not a medieval Serbian). In reality the battle was more of a draw and both Lazar and the Ottoman Sultan, Murad, were killed. Not only that but a few years later Lazar's son was fighting on the same side as Murad's son (Bayezid) against Tamburlaine. Bayezid lost against Tambulaine and the Serbs had several decades to get their act together. They preferred fighting each other instead so that eventually the Ottomans were able to conquer the Balkans fairly easily. History is never as straightforward as mythology would have us believe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Elmer Fudd Date: 28 Mar 06 - 10:09 AM Warsaw Ghetto uprising. John Brown. Joe Hill. Saccho and Venzetti. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: bobad Date: 28 Mar 06 - 10:13 AM Pyramus and Thisbe |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: number 6 Date: 28 Mar 06 - 11:54 AM James Thomas Brudenell, 7th Earl of Cardigan. 'Well, here goes the last of the Brudenells! The Brigade will advance ! Trumpeter, walk march !" and into the Valley of Death rode the six hundred. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Bunnahabhain Date: 28 Mar 06 - 12:04 PM Nelson? You think he might learn, an arm one battle, an eye in another. Dying in such a ridiculously heroic manner definitly qualifies you as a historical loser. I think the prevelance of Napoleon in British folk songs is simply due to when so many of them were first written down, in broardsides etc, and lots of the old songs were probably adapted.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Mar 06 - 01:33 PM What, Purple Fox???? Napoleon didn't surrender at Waterloo!!! He fled the field, along with the rest of the French army (except some of the Guard, who stood where they were and died). The Prussians were planning to hang him if they caught him, so he had good reason to flee the field. He was persuaded to abdicate a short time later, and the war ended. In defence of Napoleon's abilities...he won almost every battle he ever fought, often against larger forces, and he showed tremendous courage in his younger days, when he led the French troops from the front. After he became an Emperor, he led from the rear, as is generally the case with emperors. Napoleon was such an effective general in the field that the Allies who fought against him eventually decided to seek battles only with armies commanded by his subordinate generals, but not with Napoleon himself if they could possibly avoid it. This policy worked well. The subordinates often lost. Napoleon's one great blunder was the invasion of Russia. It lost him about 90% of the Grande Armee at the peak of its strength, and after that the handwriting was on the wall. The young, untried conscripts he scraped from the bottom of the barrel in France after that were not sufficient to deal with the united armies of the whole rest of Europe. On the day of Waterloo Napoleon was physically quite ill, and he did not show the kind of dash and flexibility in maneuver that he had shown in the past. Marshall Ney was effectively in command for much of the battle (Napoleon being prostrate at times in extreme pain) and Ney was a fool when it came to tactics, although he had enough courage for 10 men. It was Ney who fruitlessly threw the entire French cavalry at the British squares in as many as 10 consecutive charges! ...and yet failed to bring up infantry and artillery to smash the squares (which were only good for stopping cavalry charges). Ney was an incompetent general. Napoleon, when he was well enough to command was a brilliant general...and so was Wellington, by the way. It was Wellington's day...but given a healthier Napoleon it might not have been. Nonetheless, even if Napoleon HAD won at Waterloo it would have made little difference to the final result of that war. The French were finished. Defeat was inevitable for them after 1814. It was really Russia which finished the Napoleonic dream...back in 1812...as they later finished Hitler's dream at Stalingrad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Kaleea Date: 28 Mar 06 - 01:40 PM The world of art history is filled with 'em. Mention most any great artist-be they painter, Musician, early dancers, they often died in poverty and now their art is worth gazillions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Mar 06 - 01:48 PM That's for sure. Good contribution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 28 Mar 06 - 05:13 PM This may be somewhat pedantic, but the Spartans numbered 300, and the Persian forces were between two and three million, at the battle of Thermopylae. Also, Leonidas and his men held that pass for not one, but several days, and might well be there still, had the Persians not been shown, by a traitor, the goat track which they used to attack the Spartans from the rear. Accounts differ as to the exact figures, which is why I have been a little vague. Although they died, thus qualifying as losers individually, their actions resulted in the Persians being prevented from achieving their strategic goal, so perhaps they don't belong in this thread. They are certainly popular tho'. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Bert Date: 28 Mar 06 - 05:25 PM ...he won almost every battle he ever fought... Well not really, Wellington drove his armies out of Portugal and Spain during the Peninsula war. And he so bad at naval warfare that his ships rarely put to sea. When they eventually bravely sailed forth they were beaten by Nelson at Trafalgar. Nelsons ships could fire three salvoes to the French ships' one and were more accurate. That was the only reason that Nelson dared to try his very unusual tactics at Trafalgar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: SunnySister Date: 28 Mar 06 - 05:38 PM Al Gore... no, wait... he didn't lose... It just keeps making me sick to my stomach when I think about it. --SunnySister |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Mar 06 - 05:56 PM Come on - somebody name a folk hero who wasn't either a loser or an unlikely winner (or killed in the course of winning). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Mar 06 - 06:37 PM Thermopylae...yes indeed. Not Marathon. Thanks much for all the corrections, Don, you are absolutely right. The reason I was plenty inaccurate on what I said was simply that I was tired at the time and didn't have the time to look it all up first and check the details when I mentioned that battle. I was in a hurry, in other words. Thanks for jogging my fading memory. Bert - You mistake my meaning. French armies were defeated by Wellington many times in the Peninsular campaign, yes, but those French armies were not being personally commanded by Napoleon, but by various of his generals. He was campaigning elsewhere. Neither were the French fleets personally commanded by Napoleon. He was a land general. I was pointing out that when he was personally in command, he very seldom lost a battle. In fact, I believe the only significant set piece battles he ever lost when personally commanding on the field were: 1. The Battle of Nations (the encirclement at Leipzig) and 2. Waterloo (In the case of Leipzig the French were tremendously outnumbered and encircled, so they did surprisingly well to manage an orderly withdrawal of most of their forces rather than a panicked rout. This again speaks very well for Napoleon's command abilities.) As for Wellington, I don't think he ever lost a battle. He was a very canny tactician. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Severn Date: 28 Mar 06 - 07:21 PM Bobert, You're talking to someone who LOVED the Senators, including the original ones (Now the Twins) who played at Griffith Stadium before the expansion version with Piersall that you grew up with (now the Texas Rangers). Hell, I even went to a High School named after Walter Johnson from the last time they'd ever been good, when my dad was a wee lad. I've followed the Senators, along with the Redskins, since '57 back when they both stunk, and loved them anyway. The fact that they were taken away from the city TWICE and neither version of the Nats was any good only added to the sorrow and frustration. They were bums, but they were MY bums! Still, every kid in the nation knew the old "Washington-First in War, First in Peace and last in the American League" joke. It even appears in a Our Gang/Little Rascals short in Miss Crabtree's classroom. Roy Seivers (who won the first game I ever attended in 1957 with a home run in the 18th inning off Detroit's Al Aber) was my first sports hero. Mantle and Mays were off in New York someplace far away, but Roy was here and the best we had. He hit 42 homers that season to lead the league, possibly our ONLY bright spot. So don't come down on me with both feet in spiked shoes as if my name was GUEST til you know what the Hell I'm about, thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Peace Date: 28 Mar 06 - 07:54 PM This guy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: robomatic Date: 28 Mar 06 - 11:11 PM Robert The Bruce Boadicea Caracticus Bar Kochba Alcibiades Hector of Troy Goliath Already Mentioned but my personal favorite: Hannibal of Carthage. Whoever is trying to make a go of that Restaurant off C Street South of Tudor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Mar 06 - 11:46 PM Hector and Hannibal are super examples. Good stuff. I loved both of them when I was a kid, but I detested Achilles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Elmer Fudd Date: 29 Mar 06 - 01:26 AM The original runner on the plains of Marathon did drop dead after delivering his message. Loss of life makes one a pretty big loser... E. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Paul Burke Date: 29 Mar 06 - 03:00 AM Robert the Bruce won, despite defeats along the way, so he doesn't count. But have we had the Boys of Wexford, Kelly the Boy from Milan(*), The Forty English Terrorists(**), Sean South of Garryowen(***), Feargus O'Connor, and Jeremiah Brandreth? (*) That was how I heard it as a lad. (**) Under new legislation, we can't refer to them as "martyrs". (***) or Up-an'-Under, as it's known in t' Northern Union. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 Mar 06 - 11:35 AM Robert the Bruce would count as the underdog winning. Still waiting for folk heroes who were expected to win all along, and didn't get killed in the process. "Giant the Jack Killer" figures, as Chesterton once described them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: catspaw49 Date: 29 Mar 06 - 01:45 PM "Hector and Hannibal are super examples. Good stuff. I loved both of them when I was a kid, but I detested Achilles." I know what you mean Hawk. The guy was such a heel............ Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) Date: 29 Mar 06 - 02:57 PM Charles Edward Stuart? Do me a favour. Man was a fucking nightmare. More I learn of the Stuarts the more time I have for the Honoverians. Rommel was a nazi, by the way. Personally, I think Neil Kinnock has always had a bad press but then I think back to the way he threw away the 1992 general election at the 1991 party conference by insisting that everyone sing 'We Shall Overcome', thereby convincing even Labour supporters that he was a buffoon and letting the Tories back in for five more years. Twat. For me? George McGovern. Decent, brave man (read Stephen Ambrose's book 'Wild Blue') who tried to save his country from itself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: beardedbruce Date: 29 Mar 06 - 03:07 PM "The battleship Bismark qualifies as a highly popular loser. It is probably the most popular subject of scale models of any warship in history...along with Japan's battleship Yamato...also a spectacularly big loser." CSS Alabama and CSS Virginia? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Mar 06 - 03:36 PM Yeah, Chris, Rommel was a Nazi. And to that I say a great big..."So what?" If you'd been born in his shoes, you might very well have been a Nazi too. After the next big war is over, the Americans may be seen as the new Nazis of the world. Give that some thought, and don't be so naive as to assume that one can easily classify people as "good" or "evil" solely by some national or political label you stick on them when they've had the bad fortune to lose a war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: number 6 Date: 29 Mar 06 - 04:09 PM "Charles Edward Stuart? Do me a favour. Man was a fucking nightmare." That's why I posted his name ... he was a loser ... this thread does not necessarily pertain to "good guys" who were losers. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Tootler Date: 29 Mar 06 - 05:33 PM Richard III Shakespeare did a superb demolition job on him - Shakespeare, after all worked for the winners - but Richard III was nowhere near as black as he was painted. Oh - and no one really knows who actually did in the "princes in the tower". Also, it has been suggested that the Duke of Clarence drowning in a butt of Malmsey was a reference to his excessive drinking - even by the standards of the day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: HuwG Date: 29 Mar 06 - 05:42 PM Richard III. (This is stretching popular to mean "most well known" rather than most widely acclaimed.) Of course, his defeat was his own fault, for selling off his army's camping equipment while there were still campaigns to fight. "Now is the discount of our winter tents ..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 29 Mar 06 - 07:37 PM The Ballad of Saddam Hussein (to the tune of Stagolee, I take it - from this site Author: Peter Kaukonen Saddam Hussein's a bad man Why, everybody knows The dirty despot of Iraq That distant land of sand and oil What a bad man Despotical old Saddam Hussein It wasn't all that long ago That Saddam was our man He got paid big bucks by the CIA Donald Rumsfeld shook his hand He was our ally Cuddly old Saddam Hussein Yes, Saddam was our ally We thought we had him in our hand We didn't care how bad a man he was As long as he fucked with Iran Our little pitbull Snap-a-licious old Saddam Hussein For ten years he fought Iran And then he gassed the Kurds Using tanks and planes and guns and gas That he got from the western world He was a well-armed man Belligerent old Saddam Hussein And there's one thing about old Saddam That remains a mystery Whatever might have happened to his Double-you-em-dee How perplexing Enigmatical old Saddam Hussein I said who's sane; nobody's sane Not in Washington Dee See We are being Saddamized By the sociopathy Of our very own bad man Televangelical George E. Bush And there's a moral to this story: It don't pay to be our friend Heed the fate of old Saddam Hussein And avoid his tragic end Don't take no handouts From the double-dealing Yes-Ess-Aye Saddam Hussein was a bad man Why everybody knows Now he grows his sparse grey beard Down in Guantanamo He was a bad man Despotical old Saddam Hussein He was not a good man Tyrannical old Saddam Hussein The baddest of the baddest bad men That dirty old Saddam Hussein Copyright 2005 Peter Kaukonen |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) Date: 14 Apr 06 - 06:54 AM Ah. So Rommel was a 'good' Nazi. Of course. Silly me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Teribus Date: 14 Apr 06 - 08:47 AM "GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) - 29 Mar 06 - 02:57 PM Rommel was a nazi, by the way." "Little Hawk - 29 Mar 06 - 03:36 PM Yeah, Chris, Rommel was a Nazi. And to that I say a great big..."So what?" If you'd been born in his shoes, you might very well have been a Nazi too." "GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) - 14 Apr 06 - 06:54 AM Ah. So Rommel was a 'good' Nazi. Of course. Silly me." Only one thing wrong with all of that Field Marshall Erwin Rommel was NEVER a member of the National Socialist Party, i.e. NEVER a NAZI. www.angelfire.com/ia/totalwar/Rommel.html http://www.sproe.com/r/rommel.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Teribus Date: 14 Apr 06 - 09:03 AM John of Arc was a welder, I met him when he was working for AMEC at Wallsend Purple Foxx, Napoleon always referred to Britain as his most constant and most generous enemy. Britain was the only nation in Europe that had opposed France and had remained undefeated from the start of the French Revolutionary War in 1793, and throughout what became known as the Napoleonic War. After his defeat at Waterloo he surrendered to the British out of respect for them, he had defeated Prussia, Austria and Russia at various times throughout his career and had dictated terms to their rulers, none of whom he had any regard for whatsoever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Alaska Mike Date: 14 Apr 06 - 09:22 AM How about William Wallace? He was betrayed, tortured, drawn and quartered, yet he has been beloved by Scots for 7 centuries and the rest of the world since Mel Gibson's movie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: freda underhill Date: 14 Apr 06 - 09:39 AM the Anzacs the Tolpuddle Martyrs |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Apr 06 - 06:08 PM Yes, thanks for the correction, Teribus. As you say, Rommel was never a member of the Nazi Party. My point was that the people who go into a righteous fury over anyone who speaks of a German WWII commander as if he were a normal human being....just because he is an "evil Nazi" in their eyes...that anyone who does that is a bit stupid or a bit unable to use their imagination and place themselves in another person's shoes...because if they had been born as German in his time they would very, very likely have done exactly the same as he did and supported the German war effort with all their ability and strength...specially if they are the type now who has a high regard for patriotism to his own country in time of war. Rommel may have been peripherally involved in the plot to assassinate Hitler in 1944....the Gestapo certainly thought he was...or he may have simply known of it in some way before it happened...hard to say at this point. At any rate, he was forced to either face trial or take poison. He took the poison. It was the opinion of a great many German commanders (probably a majority of them in 1944) that the country would be better off without Adolf HItler by that time...this again being their natural response to the fact that they were patriotic men (as well as realistic men) and they realized that his leadership was causing the utter ruination of Germany and prolonging the war beyond all reason. To have such an opinion is one thing. To be able to do something effective about it in the midst of a police state fighting desperately for survival is quite another. One has, after all, a hell of a lot of other stuff to attend to on a daily basis, and one cannot easily plan such a thing secretly and bring it off effectively. One is likely to fail, get caught, and get executed...as happened to the key people in the plot that exploded the bomb in Hitler's bunker. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Apr 06 - 06:16 PM Here is one account of the assassination plot, taken off the Net: The Assassination Conspiracy on Hitler's Life Since 1937, a small group of German officials, military officers, civil servants, and patriots had been planning an attempt to overthrow Hitler and his terror-grip on Germany. However, virtually none of the conspirators controlled any large armies, thus making the possibility of a military coup unavailable. They needed to win a battlefront general who commands a large force with which they can use to put Hitler out of power, for good. However, all of the top brass of the Wehrmacht - Brauchitsch, Halder, von Runstedt, Manstein, Guderian, Kluge - have either refused their support or taken a fence-sitting attitude. However, Rommel has held anti-Nazi views, and is known amongst the conspirators for a rebellious attitude towards Hitler. If they can convince Rommel to join the plot, the coup might definitely succeed. Colonel Claus von Stauffenburg, current leader of the conspiracy, asks General Karl-Heinrich von Stuelpnagel (military governer of Paris and leader of the conspirators in France) to invite Rommel to Paris to discuss the matter of Rommel joining the conspiracy. Rommel agrees with Stuelpnagel that Hitler had lost touch with reality and seems to have a death wish, and will bring Germany down with him unless something is done. However, he tells Stuelpnagel that assassination is morally unnacceptable for him. He would like to see Hitler arrested and tried in a German court for his many crimes. Rommel sends a teletype memo to Hitler, telling him that the Allies are clearly winning and strongly suggesting that he sue for peace, or cut Germany's losses and withdraw all German troops to inside the German border. He does not believe that Hitler will agree with the message, in which case, Rommel tells Stuelpnagel that he will commit himself to a military coup. The next day, Rommel's staff car is strafed by British fighters, which kills his driver and sends the car spinning into a ditch. Rommel suffers severe head injuries and is incapable of assisting Stauffenberg when he plants the bomb three days later in Hitler's headquarters. Guenther von Kluge fails to forward Rommel's memo to Hitler, only to send it to him two weeks later. Needless to say, the attempt fails, and Rommel is soon rooted out as a conspirator. There are two stories as to how his name was revealed, the first it that it came through Luftwaffe Caesar von Hofacker under torture, and the second is that after General von Stuelpnagel attempts to commit suicide, fails, he is taken to a German field hospital, where he shouts out Rommel's name in his delirium. On October 14, 1944, two generals visit Rommel at his home in Errlingen and hand him a cyanide capsule and a message from Hitler: commit suicide and be buried with honors or stand trial for high treason and be hung, which implies the loss of his family's honor. Rommel bids farewell to his wife and son, and is driven off in an army car, having swallowed the capsule. Rommel is buried with full military honors and is bid a hero's farewell. "His devotion to the profession of arms was in the best tradition of the gentleman. In a total war fought savagely and brutally, he inspired admiration for his treatment of prisoners. He was not tainted by Nazism....With his troops he enjoyed a deep rapport. He cared for them, and although he demanded their best and more, he never squandered them. Without pretension, modest, he tackled all his tasks with clarity, energy, and common sense." -Hitler's Generals, p. 315 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 14 Apr 06 - 06:40 PM Bobert nominated, among other things: Oh yeah, other loosers: *Andrew Johnson is definately Top Ten material... Sorry, Bobert, you're all wet. The "most popular" hardly applies. He was one of the least effective presidents ever, so "loser" is surely a propos, but "most popular"? *Remember Julius Ceasar? He's gotta be ranked... Wrong again, Bobert. He was a conspicuous winner all his life. Yes, he was murdered in the end by conspirators, but that doesn't make him a loser. *How 'bout Col. Custer and his boys???... A loser, certainly--not just because of the Little Bighorn massacre, either. But "popular"? *Cornwallis din't get that last "W" he needed either... Cornwallis is popular? *And how about Spiro Agnew??? "Spiro who?" I think you just missed the premise of the thread, Bobert. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: GUEST Date: 14 Apr 06 - 06:47 PM What about the Anzac landing at Gallipoli... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Bert Date: 14 Apr 06 - 06:51 PM Or the Canadians at Dieppe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Apr 06 - 08:11 PM There are two excellent examples. The Gallipoli one was a very near thing...could've gone either way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: number 6 Date: 14 Apr 06 - 08:30 PM L.H. ... Rommel was a complex individual ... what makes me question him and his participation with Hitler and the assination attempt is that right up to the end where he took his own life he pledged his love to the fuehrer. "If you'd been born in his shoes, you might very well have been a Nazi too." ..... I don't necessarily think so. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Apr 06 - 10:15 PM Well, what I really meant was, "if you'd been a German in the 1940's the odds are quite high that you would have loyally served in the German war effort". After all, the vast majority of Germans did. And the vast majority of people normally do that in any country, regardless of whether or not it's under very bad leadership at the time. (But if you were a Jew, needless to say...or a Communist...or a Gypsy...etc...then you would have been in a different spot, obviously. A very bad one.) No one can say for sure, Number 6, what he might or might not have done had he been born in a different group of people at some other historical time. We have the benefit of hindsight now when we look back at the Nazis. That changes a lot, and it accounts for most of the strong opinions one hears about the matter. Those opinions are not based on direct experience usually, but on hindsight...and on what one has heard about the Nazis from other people, books, movies, etc. Well, they were basing their actions on what they heard too...and they heard all kinds of info on their controlled media which gave them the impression that they were defending Christendom, fighting subversive and evil forces, and saving Europe from Communismm, among other things. The usual propaganda. Like Mr Bush they were on a crusade...and they believed in the righteousness of that crusade. People are easily fooled. Hitler seems to have been a tremendously charismatic individual with the gift to say what a lot of Germans wanted to hear in the 20's and 30's: that the army had not really "lost" WWI, but had been betrayed from within by Jews, anarchists, communists, etc. That Germany had been unfairly punished and treacherously dealt with by the Allied powers at the end of WWI. That with his leadership they would regain lands that had been stolen from them and restore national strength and national pride. That he would rebuild the economy and put Germans back to work again in a prosperous country. This is the kind of thing an embittered electorate in a financially devastated country wants to hear! ;-) Is it any wonder that he found a fervent response? This is why I can understand that Rommel and many others admired Hitler. They were not focusing on what we focus on when we think of the Nazis: death camps, aggression, tyranny, genocide... They were focusing on the positive visions of a renewed Germany that HE had put in front of them...and he did very well in accomplishing much of what he had promised the Germans...up until it all started to go very badly wrong on the war front in Russia, and then elsewhere. Rommel must have been very conflicted, as I'm sure many German officers were. The leader he had at first admired and had confidence in in earlier years was proving with time, as the war situation deteriorated, to be an unstable and fatally flawed individual. It's damn hard to deal with a situation like that, when this unstable individual is your commander-in-chief. Suppose that some American generals came to the conclusion that George Bush was insane and was leading the country to a Third World War. What would they do about it? What could they do about it? Think what a difficult, nearly impossible situation they would find themselves in, trying to decide what to do. That's a bit like the position German general officers were in in '43-45. It's enough to drive a person to suicide, and some of them did kill themselves. It's one hell of a bad spot to be in when you realize that your high command may have lost its sanity. Because of this, Rommel strikes me as a tragic figure, and one heck of a good battlefield commander. Such men should not be judged hastily because they had the bad luck to find themselves on the losing side in a great war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: number 6 Date: 14 Apr 06 - 10:34 PM I see your point LH ... who are we to judge when we are so far from their time and place ... another complex person who fell under Hitler's spell is Albert Speer .... Speer and Rommel seem so out of place to have been lured into that wolfpack of despots. Speer even regardless of his confession of remorse in the Nuremberg trials was quilty of enjoying the spoils and orchestrating the fate of many victims of the Nazis. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Apr 06 - 11:34 PM That's what "systems" are like. You start out thinking they are for all kinds of great things...and if you participate you will surely benefit from the advantages of the system when it's riding high. You may end up seeing another whole side of it later on when the system falls down around you and its dirty laundry is exposed for all to see. Here's another grand contrast of conflicting images of a system, for example: "Mission accomplished" and the toppling of Saddam's statue in the square in Baghdad....and then later the images of torture from Abu Grahib prison. Two radically different ways of looking at the ramifications of one system's "just war". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Teribus Date: 15 Apr 06 - 07:31 AM number 6, It should also be remembered that although he was never a member of the National Socialist Party, Erwin Rommel as a serving member of the German Armed Forces in the early 1930's had to swear a personal oath of allegiance to Adolf Hitler. There is also recorded an incident where on being ordered to execute prisoners, Rommel took the order from the signals orderlie and burnt it in front of the members of his Staff who were present. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Little Hawk Date: 15 Apr 06 - 01:45 PM Interesting historical detail there, Teribus. As far as I'm concerned, Rommel was a good man in a bad system. There were a great many such men. As for loyalty oaths, they are common in systems. Everyone dutifully mouths them, because there really doesn't appear to be any choice about the matter whether you believe in it or not. I recall everyone mouthing the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag (of the USA) in school every morning when I lived there between age 10 and 20. I was not in sympathy with the idea at all, so I merely stood there, went through the motions and moved my lips but never actually spoke the words. I was not prepared to make an open issue of the matter, because it would simply have put me in an impossible position, and I was already being picked on by other students anyway for "not being an American". Why make things even worse by drawing further attention to myself as an outsider? When you're in a heavily procedurized national system, specially an armed forces, and they require you to recite a loyalty oath...you recite it, by God, or at least look like you're doing so. Specially in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia. To not recite it, in Rommel's case, would have been the action of either a complete fool or a martyr who wished to end his career rather abruptly. And if you still believed in the system and its leader at the time, as the younger Rommel certainly did...why wouldn't you recite the oath? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Apr 06 - 08:08 PM I'd have thought that your classmates would have been likely to object strongly to anyone who was not seen as "not being an American" haviomng the nerve even to try to pledge allegance to the flag. "You go and pledge allegance to your own flag, and leave our flag alone!" ..................................... I see there've been no takers yet to my invitation to people to come up with any songs that have made it into the tradition that are about winners (leaving aside the winners who get killed, like Nelson and Wolfe). I might start a thread about that - but I don't think it'll be a long one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Teribus Date: 15 Apr 06 - 09:06 PM Yes Little Hawk but the main difference between yourself and Erwin Rommel is that he was a professional soldier at the time, with some degree of honour ( a concept I know you do not understand, or value) he had to swear his oath of allegiance. In giving that oath, to him personally, his word actually meant something to him. Wouldn't ever mean anything to you being the absolute tosser that you are, I sincerely hope that your classmates knocked seven bells of shit out of you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Little Hawk Date: 15 Apr 06 - 11:14 PM Not exactly, McGrath. Everyone attending was expected to stand, place their hand on their heart, and pledge allegiance to the flag. It was simply taken for granted in that small town in the 1960's, but I don't know about now. I doubt that it would have occurred to many there to take into account the different status of a foreign national at that school, except in the case of an official exchange student. Then it would have been, I would expect. We had exchange students (one a year), but I don't think there was ever one in my homeroom, so I don't know what they did about the "Pledge". I would assume they were not required to make it...I hope so, anyway. Certainly, people were aware that I was a Canadian, and my teachers were aware of it, but no one ever suggested that I should not participate in the morning flag ritual. If I had chosen deliberately not to, then it would have become an issue with some of the other students. There were lots of bully boys who were delighted to have such an excuse over which to harass another student. I was a loyal Canadian, and my flag was the flag of Canada. It was not my decision to move to the USA at age ten, but my father's, for business reasons. So, no, McGrath, they did not in the least object to me (or a young Mexican kid in Texas, I would imagine) saluting their flag. Seems to me they expected it. There IS no other flag but the American flag in the consciousness of most Americans, seems to me. Their national anthem is even about their flag. I've never seen a more flag-conscious population, and I doubt there IS a more flag-conscious population. It's certainly not given so much attention in Canada, which is given to a somewhat quieter kind of patriotism. ************ Teribus, I have to disappoint you on that. No one ever beat me up at that school. The only kid that ever beat me up in my life was a fellow Canadian when I was about 6 years old...and he didn't do me any serious harm, just hit me a couple of times. (He was as strong as an ox...probably became a pro wrestler in later years.) We were good friends, but we had a little misunderstanding that day over something. ;-) No big deal. I am well aware of Rommel's honor code, and I admire it...as I would admire any such code, because it requires discipline and courage to meet its requirements. In my own case honor has consisted of not lying, not stealing, keeping my word, obeying the law, paying my debts, treating people decently, that sort of thing. Perfectly normal stuff. It seems to have served me well so far. I have no intention of joining the military in this life...I had a bellyful of that in a few previous ones, and have no desire to repeat past follies by going to war in this life. War is a great big giant waste of human potential. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Leadfingers Date: 16 Apr 06 - 10:39 AM And Losers dont get 1oo th posts |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) Date: 17 Apr 06 - 07:07 AM Stauffenberg and co only started plotting to kill Hitler after he started to lose the war. When it looked like he was winning they had no great compunctions about following him - like most germans at the time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 17 Apr 06 - 06:32 PM There's a great sailors' song, called something like Morrissey and the Russian", about a bare-knuckle fistfight between an Irish and a Russion sailor, in Terre del Fuego. Both the Russian (whose name is lost, at least to me) and a fellow named Morrissey, who was a great hero at the time. It's definitely about the winner, not the loser. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Apr 06 - 06:55 PM I gathered as much, Little Hawk - I was just marvelling at an attitude that could fail to recognise that a foreigner who pledged "allegiance" to "the flag" - as opposed to paying respect to it - must be either a traitor or a liar. This is thread drift, but... There does seem to be something very special about the relationship between Americans and their flag. I am reading a book by Steven Pinker, (The Blank Slate) at the moment, and there is one passage where he is giving examples of cases where it is implied that ordinary people are likely to feel that some moral boundary is being offended against, even though no evident harm is done to any person - and in among hypothetical cases involving incest and cannibalism comes this one: "A woman is cleaning out her closet, and she finds her old American flag. She doesn't want the flag anymore, so she cuts it up into pieces and uses the rags to clean her bathroom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: the one Date: 18 Apr 06 - 02:35 PM them who bought tickets for the titanic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Kaleea Date: 18 Apr 06 - 02:38 PM Golly, I always enjoyed hearing Oil Can Harry hollar out, "Curses, foiled again." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: GUEST,Gillian Brookbourgh Date: 18 Apr 06 - 02:40 PM Has to be Margaret Thatcher. Ran the country into the ground and voted out by her own party. Now a broken woman looking at life through the bottom of a glass and fantasing about young men. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: the one Date: 18 Apr 06 - 02:43 PM judas |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:29 PM Interesting twist there - "most popular loser" being taken to mean the person whose losing was most popular, aka "least popular loser". Lots of copmpetition for that. Pretty hard to beat Hitler. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Lonesome EJ Date: 18 Apr 06 - 08:47 PM Sorry, guys, but I think you are all over-intellectualizing this concept. There is only one Great Loser, whose losses, though tragic, never succeed in dimming his dauntless spirit or sabotaging his complex planning. Somehow, his horrific disasters in connection with the elaborate mechanisms he devises, never administer the coup de grace to his endless scheming. His nobility, and the fervor with which we cheer his efforts, are enhanced by the disdain which we feel for his taunting, effete, hollow-eyed adversary. He is Ahab, Buster Keaton, and Don Quixote rolled into one existential personage. His struggle is man's struggle in the face of the inexorable, his quest our quest. He is Wiley Coyote. And in a way, WE are all Wiley Coyote, my friends. We all are engaged in the eternal quest to catch and devour the particular Roadrunner of our own lives. We will stop at nothing to attain this goal, dragging ourselves out of dusty arroyos, peeling ourselves off of rock slabs, struggling out of the spent and shattered hulks of our ACME Rocket-propelled hovercraft, our arms and legs pointing in different directions. So engrossed in our chase are we that we run full speed off of cliffs, the object of our desire finally, firmly clutched in our greedy paws, only to look down and discover that we are 3600 feet in the air, have our adversary woggle his tongue at us, as we wave bye-bye and drop down, down, fading to a faint speck that briefly resonates as it slaps dust at the canyon bottom. Viva Wiley, I say! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: frogprince Date: 18 Apr 06 - 08:57 PM Hats off, once again, to the poet and philosopher Lonesome E J! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Apr 06 - 09:42 PM L.E.J., you are absolutely, 100% right. Wile E. Coyote is IT. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Hrothgar Date: 19 Apr 06 - 05:33 AM If Benedict Arnold can get a mention, why not John Andre? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: The Walrus Date: 19 Apr 06 - 08:52 PM "...I see there've been no takers yet to my invitation to people to come up with any songs that have made it into the tradition that are about winners (leaving aside the winners who get killed, like Nelson and Wolfe)..." Anything about Wellington or the Duke of Marlborough - both successful, both died in their own beds. As to popular losers - President Madison and the US Army of 1812 ;-) (they must have been popular with someone at home). W |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Willie-O Date: 20 Apr 06 - 08:01 AM I am surprised, given the authorship of this thread, that we haven't put more Canadians on the list. Top ranked: Tommy Douglas, dammit!Now of course, he mucked it up by actually WINNING plenty of elections and political battles. (For those of you unaware of this man, recently chosen Greatest Canadian in a TV series/national poll, he introduced universal publicly financed health care to Canada, among other good and great deeds.) He was a highly successful premier of Saskatchewan, but then when he moved into federal politics, as the leader of the small third party to the left of the Liberal/Conservative axis, (the NDP) had to settle for being "the conscience of Canada". As far as honourable defeats go, his vote against Trudeau's War Measures Act in 1970 has been called his finest hour. He was one of only seven to dissent from this imposition of martial law which history has shown to have been a complete overreaction to the FLQ crisis. (I was surprised that the recent mini-series about Douglas totally neglected this episode). Some more contenders from North of 49 (metaphorically speaking; like most Ontarians I am sitting well south of that line at this moment); one may argue their popularity but they certainly never achieved their main objective): Louis Riel Gabriel Dumont Gen Romeo Dallaire (prev mentioned) Terry Fox Robert Stanfield Rene Levesque Chief Dan George sez W-O |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 20 Apr 06 - 10:49 AM One Canadian who exceeded his objectives, but was never mentioned in that list was Sir William Stephenson (aka a man called Intrepid) a huge mistake in my opinion. But then history is not taught well, or is just a voluntary subject in Canadian schools. Yours, Aye. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 20 Apr 06 - 10:53 AM Sorry, I ment to say the list of the most famous Canadians to WillieO When we had the competition for the most famous Canadians he was never even mentioned. Yours, Aye. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Most popular historical losers... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Apr 06 - 08:48 PM Anything about Wellington or the Duke of Marlborough - both successful, both died in their own beds. And not too many songs featuring them. (I posted a link to one of thse in thread I started - Any popular 'winners') |
