There is glorification of those who have been ‘great’ in their capacity to organise groups of men to risk their lives in the endeavour to destroy other groups of men. Alexander the Great, Caesar and Napoleon devoted their lives to extending their power and yet are honoured in memory. Julius is a name shared by a month, one of my uncles and Groucho Marx. My uncle preferred to call himself Leon, and Julius Marx called himself Groucho. Perhaps we can rename July Darwin. Delicious items of food and drink such as Caesar salad, Napoleon brandy, Napoleon pastry and Brandy Alexander are named after these monsters. Their names even corrupt our literature. An Alexandrine is a line of poetic meter comprising 12 syllables. Alexandrines are common in the German literature of the Baroque period and in French poetry of the early modern and modern periods. Drama in English often used alexandrines before Marlowe and Shakespeare, by whom it was supplanted by iambic pentameter (5-foot verse).

The glory of Athenian democracy disappeared with the conquest of Athens. The Roman Republic ended with Caesar. The promise of the French Revolution was buried with the assumption of the mantle of empire by Napoleon. Napoleon even used the rhetoric of freedom to enslave the French and others in his drive for power.

Many do not think of these monsters as monsters but regard them as heroic figures. It might put matters in better perspective to realise that some that we recognise as bloody monsters are revered in other cultures as heroic figures. Attila is a common name for Hungarian boys. Genghis is a common name for Mongolian boys.

Let us recognise Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and Napoleon as the bloody monsters they were.

Dear David F.,

The subject of "Bloody Monsters," may exemplify the
arguments of those who insist there is no such thing
as "objective history." In discussing historical
leaders much will probably depend on the point of view of
any interpreter viewing their historical legacy.

Great men are seldom good men but equally not all great
men are equally bad. There are always - pros and cons.
It all depends on one's point of view. As is the
ability to look critically at the times in which these
leaders lived and -
things like motivation, circumstances, context, or
any other such considerations should come into play
to be able to make a fair assessment

Quite right, Foxy, they should be judged in the context of their times.
Our own dear old Sir Henry Parkes should be remembered as 'The Father of Federation' rather than as a womanizing sectarian bigot with at least one judicial murder to his credit.

Unless man was restless to change things we would still be living in caves. These men in their mind believed in a better world.

'morning David f,

I think you might find that the statute of limitations has expired on these cases?

Dear spindoc,

Generally, a statute of limitations does not apply to murder.

David. f,

I think you underestimate the innate savagery of Homo Sapiens - especially its penchant for slaughtering its own kind.

Because the human species is also capable of civilised interaction and enlightened philosophical ethos, it tends to shock one when confronted with its penchant for murder and mayhem on grand scales.

I know Koestler tended to view the whole of humanity as displaying a kind of insanity, being controlled by various aspects of its complex brain structure... the cerebral neocortex and the mammalian brain vying with each other for control a various intervals....akin to a rider on a horse without reins to connect them.

Dear Josephus,

How do you know that those monsters 'in their mind believed in a better world?' Scientists, doubters and others who gained new insights changed the world. In my opinion the world would be better off if Caesar, Alexander and Napoleon had not been able to gain any power.

Dear Poirot,

Innate savagery? Most contacts of humans with other humans are peaceful. Most people on their own do not go out and commit acts of barbarism. The Spartans who were a warrior people refused to accompany Alexander on his wars of conquest. They were not interested in foreign adventures but primarily in defending Sparta. Most Romans were not militaristic. Those who fought with Caesar were a professional warrior class. Most soldiers who followed Napoleon were conscripts who had little option but to go with him.

There is a tradition of those who have opposed militarism. There are no days devoted to remembering that legacy. Military training attempts to break down the resistance of most humans to killing other humans. According to the US Infantry Journal only about 20% of soldiers in regular army units fire their weapons in combat. Elite units such as the marines or the SS may increase that percentage to 80.

It is estimated that law enforcement would be impossible if more than 3% of people were willing to break the laws.

Koestler was a brilliant but difficult person with enthusiasms for crackpot theories. After spending time in a kibbutz he was rejected when he applied for membership. He was a communist until he became disillusioned with Stalin. He was an entertaining and amusing writer, but I wouldn't take his theories on the structure of the brain seriously.

david. f,

"Innate savagery? Most contacts of humans with other humans are peaceful...."

That may be so, however, human history is punctuated with the most heinous and savage barbarism, not only of fellow humans, but also of other species and the environment.

How do you explain that if we're such a "peaceful" species?

Perhaps we're a biological error?

Poirot,

"....akin to a rider on a horse without reins to connect them."

Just a minor point, but not a good analogy, as any horse man or woman, worth their salt, would tell you, especially those who have been army trained and rode over the jumps without reins.
It was a common thing on stations for the 'horse boy' to mount bareback sans reins and then show off his expertise by rounding up the other horses and bringing them in; done it myself and come a few humiliating croppers into the bargain!!

Is Mise,

Well it's a perfectly good analogy for the majority of humans who get on a horse and ride it....that's what reins are for.

Dear Poirot,

As far as destruction of the environment we do it because we can do it. The greatest destruction of the environment was by the anaerobic bacteria. Their metabolic processes resulted in the excretion of free oxygen as a waste product. It was toxic to them so they destroyed much of their habitat. They still exist in such manifestations as the gangrene bacteria. However, they made life possible for the life forms which take in oxygen. The destruction of the environment by humans is generally no more purposeful than the destruction by the anaerobic bacteria.

Our species is not unique in producing the extinction of other species. However, we are unique in concerning ourselves with the extinction of other species.

Humans do have impulses to disorder and bad behaviour. Society has developed mechanisms to express that side of us. One mechanism is the release of carnival each year where humans are permitted to do things which would not be allowed in the rest of the year. War and occasional acts of barbarism are the safety valve so that we can be peaceful most of the time.

We need to limit our population. Unfortunately that's difficult to do. The chief cause of conflict appears to be too many people competing for too few resources.

At least get some of your facts right, david f.

>>Delicious items of food and drink such as Caesar salad, Napoleon brandy, Napoleon pastry and Brandy Alexander are named after these monsters.<<

Caesar salad was named after the restaurant owner who invented it, Caesar Cardini.

Napoleon pastry has nothing to do with Bonaparte. It is a corruption of napolitain (Neapolitain) and originated in Naples.

Brandy Alexander is a cocktail, and was named after Troy Alexander, a bartender in New York.

The only one remotely connected with Napoleon Bonaparte is the brandy, and the evidence for that - that Napoleon insisted that no-one touch his brandy while he was away campaigning - is pretty flimsy.

Next you'll be telling us that Pol Pot's name is honoured in everything from snooker, through Josiah Wedgewood and Victorian gozunders, to recreational drugs.

Dear Pericles,

I thank you for the information and writhe at your feet in an agony of humble self-abasement.

I have enjoyed all those items and will now feel less guilty about enjoying them.

"Perhaps we're a biological error". You go too far Poirot.

Yes there are some biological errors among us, but we have a name for them.

We call them feminists.

David f>> We need to limit our population. Unfortunately that's difficult to do. The chief cause of conflict appears to be too many people competing for too few resources.<<

David we have a score card that shows 80% of the globes wealth sits in the pockets of 5% of the globes population.

We currently produce food enough to feed 12 billion people, but we can’t get food to the starving here and now.......why?.............because of the 5% I surmise.

sonofgloin,

You may need to consider that at least some of the 5% are probably taking the entrepreneurial risks to provide more food (and more energy and water) where government is incapable of doing it.

Daily there are news reports of innovations of great benefit to mankind that result from the research and other capabilities made available through the concentration of wealth in few hands (more likely corporations owned by many shareholders and operating under a mountain of regulations), but it is rare that we ever hear of government producing anything new and useful. Why is that do you suppose?

David f.,

"Our species is not unique in producing the extinction of other species. However, we are unique in concerning ourselves with the extinction of other species."

Our species "is" unique in having such a detrimental effect and causing the extinction of "so many" fellow species in the relatively short space of time that has accompanied our industrial and mechanical advances.

We're also unique in that we have the intelligence to glean the havoc we are wreaking, not only on other species, but also on the environment which supports us....but not the wisdom to moderate our activities.

OTB I do take your point into consideration.

I am not railing against investment or the profits that come from venture capital.

We have witnessed the economic train wreck that the likes of communism delivered .......and the nationalization of key industries in a free market economy such as Britain in the 1960’s and 1970’s had delivered.

OTB my response to David was regarding his depopulation scenario...............getting rid of people will not redistribute wealth and resources..it will not make the remaining population less prone to conflict over the resource. Right now we can feed every mouth on this planet, but we don’t...........and the means to do so is owned by 5% of the globes population.

OTB I have no love of the Fabians or the Bankers. Westpac announced a 7 billion profit today.........in an economy where coal mining is down by 16% and ore is down by 7% against 2012/13.

Poirot>> but not the wisdom to moderate our activities.<<

Wisdom like Pol Pot dear Poirot?..........how do we regress from a system that has growth as a foundation to its existence.......growth consumes resource........we could go to year zero like Pol Pot but without the butchery.

As I said to David, the means and the control needed to bring about a real dawning of Aquarius for humanity is owned by the 5%.....and they aint handing it over.......they are about growth...their growth not ours.

"Wisdom like Pol Pot dear Poirot?....."

What a stupid response...dear sonofgloin.

Poirot>> What a stupid response...dear sonofgloin.<<

C’mon Poirot dear...there is nothing wrong with using Pol Pot.

You said:
"Our species "is" unique in having such a detrimental effect and causing the extinction of "so many" fellow species in the relatively short space of time that has accompanied our industrial and mechanical advances."

Pol Pot said:
"We strive for a classless peasant society, technology and mechanisation is our enemy it saps the life from the earth"

P, by wearing the blame in your statement...and your perspective on green issues I would expect you be in favour of a less energy dependant lifestyle such as Pol Pot extolled......can’t see why you would get nasty over that...........I qualified “without” the butchery in my first post.

sonofgloin,

The two key words in my sentence that you quoted were "wisdom" and "moderate".

How do you get from that to:

"Pol Pot said:
"We strive for a classless peasant society, technology and mechanisation is our enemy it saps the life from the earth" ?

sonofgloin,

My mistake and my misunderstanding, sorry.

Poirot>> but not the wisdom to moderate our activities.<<
The two key words in my sentence that you quoted were "wisdom" and "moderate".
How do you get from that to:

"Pol Pot said:<<

P in context your post reads:
"we have the intelligence to glean the havoc we are wreaking”
“but not the wisdom to moderate our activities”

So I used Pol Pot, the 20th century's most successful regression devotee and moderator of our activities........what’s wrong with that?......

Thanks OTB........