Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Azza007 wrote:But the OP said leaders from your country, Wellington is British, Naps is not.

Napoleon, Emperor of Europe, is leader to us all.

Bromsy wrote:Nationalistically - Andrew Jackson is probably our single most 'bad ass' leader.

Well he certainly was able to kill a lot of his Native allies. I guess that is bad ass. He was also able to wad up The Constitution and wipe his ass with it, which I suppose is also bad ass.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Azza007 wrote:But the OP said leaders from your country, Wellington is British, Naps is not.

Napoleon, Emperor of Europe, is leader to us all.

Emperor of bits of Europe...
No one has managed to hack their way into Blghty since 1066... unless they forgot to tell us about it.

You didn't get the memo?

I don't feel like reading the thread, but if anyone hasn't mentioned FDR then a crime has been committed.

Then, of course, there are Stalin, Mao, and Ortega.

Emperors Faithful wrote:You didn't get the memo?

The nationwide memo that we have been invaded?
No I was on the bog...

purplefood wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:You didn't get the memo?

The nationwide memo that we have been invaded?
No I was on the bog...

Eh.

Teddy Roosevelt could do anything. Anything.


And he's not from my country, but Putin is pretty much a modern-day T.R.

micahaphone wrote:And he's not from my country, but Putin is pretty much a modern-day Ernst Stavro Blofeld

Much better.

Ahtman wrote:

micahaphone wrote:And he's not from my country, but Putin is pretty much a modern-day Ernst Stavro Blofeld

Much better.

I've been expecting you mister hermit

In my sleep-deprived state, I wondered for a moment if Blofeld was an actual person. I think that means it's time for bed. G'night, everyone.

Ahtman wrote:

Bromsy wrote:Nationalistically - Andrew Jackson is probably our single most 'bad ass' leader.

Well he certainly was able to kill a lot of his Native allies. I guess that is bad ass. He was also able to wad up The Constitution and wipe his ass with it, which I suppose is also bad ass.

Uh, yeah, actually all of that is pretty bad ass, if you were being sarcastic. Thread ain't about who's the most noble, kind or generous leader.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Azza007 wrote:OK fine the French. Who was ruled over by Napoleon. He still kicked ass.

Who Napoleon? Yeah, he brought the war-torn French nation out of a deep gak-hole and managed to conquer/liberate () most of Europe. Twice. He was so good that "the French decided to call it a day and never contribute anything to society ever again. And they never have." -TMP


Puts him a step above Wellington as a leader, methinks.

What, the guy who beat him? Twice?

Also, India. He was pretty awesome there, too. The Empire never would have conquered the place if it wasn't for Wellington.

youbedead wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

micahaphone wrote:And he's not from my country, but Putin is pretty much a modern-day Ernst Stavro Blofeld

Much better.

I've been expecting you mister hermit

Minime, we do not nibble on our kitty.

Albatross wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Azza007 wrote:OK fine the French. Who was ruled over by Napoleon. He still kicked ass.

Who Napoleon? Yeah, he brought the war-torn French nation out of a deep gak-hole and managed to conquer/liberate () most of Europe. Twice. He was so good that "the French decided to call it a day and never contribute anything to society ever again. And they never have." -TMP


Puts him a step above Wellington as a leader, methinks.

What, the guy who beat him? Twice?

Also, India. He was pretty awesome there, too. The Empire never would have conquered the place if it wasn't for Wellington.

Only beat him once (Waterloo was the only time the two generals clashed with one another) and he needed the Prussians help for that.


Though his campaign in India was pretty awesome. I'm shocked at how the Indian opposition melted away in these engagements, though I don't think the conquering of India can be claimed by (at the time) Wellesly alone.

Or whatever the chap's real name was.

William Rufus, son of William the Conqueror, king of England from 1087 to 1100.

First openly gay king of England and he did it in the Middle Ages...now that's a guy with balls of steel!

Bromsy wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Bromsy wrote:Nationalistically - Andrew Jackson is probably our single most 'bad ass' leader.

Well he certainly was able to kill a lot of his Native allies. I guess that is bad ass. He was also able to wad up The Constitution and wipe his ass with it, which I suppose is also bad ass.

Uh, yeah, actually all of that is pretty bad ass, if you were being sarcastic. Thread ain't about who's the most noble, kind or generous leader.

I think you are confusing being an ass with being a bad ass. Compare his exploits to that of Teddy Roosevelt and he is essentially a child throwing a temper tantrum if he doesn't get what he wants.

Ahtman wrote:

Bromsy wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Bromsy wrote:Nationalistically - Andrew Jackson is probably our single most 'bad ass' leader.

Well he certainly was able to kill a lot of his Native allies. I guess that is bad ass. He was also able to wad up The Constitution and wipe his ass with it, which I suppose is also bad ass.

Uh, yeah, actually all of that is pretty bad ass, if you were being sarcastic. Thread ain't about who's the most noble, kind or generous leader.

I think you are confusing being an ass with being a bad ass. Compare his exploits to that of Teddy Roosevelt and he is essentially a child throwing a temper tantrum if he doesn't get what he wants.

To many quotes of quotes. Which leader are you referring to Ahtman?

Frazzled wrote:To many quotes of quotes. Which leader are you referring to Ahtman?

Andrew Jackson

Ah ok.

-Jackson kicked the crap out multiple Seminole tribes.
-Jackson delayed the Civil War by threateneing to hang any politician who spoke of such.
-Jackson kicked the gak out of the British army with a polyglot of Cajuns, pirates, local natives, and a few regulars. Lets restate. Under Jackson the French actually won a battle. I know I know its just crazy talk but yea the French actually did win a battle.

Teddy (also known as Mr. Concentrated Awesome):
-charge that hill and Bully!
-crushed the trusts
-did the first national land set asides
-Great White Fleet
-wacked him some fearsome beasts with mighty American made riflery
-Rose from physical handicaps to being a pugiliist.
-That whole "so what if you shot me, I'm going to finish my ing speech."
-had the Teddy Bear made after him.
-scared Chuck Norris.

Frazzled wrote:Ah ok.

-Jackson kicked the crap out multiple Seminole tribes.
-Jackson delayed the Civil War by threateneing to hang any politician who spoke of such.
-Jackson kicked the gak out of the British army with a polyglot of Cajuns, pirates, local natives, and a few regulars. Lets restate. Under Jackson the French actually won a battle. I know I know its just crazy talk but yea the French actually did win a battle.

That is a wonderful example of what is called spin. One mans bad-ass is any reasonable persons jack ass. Having had to study that time period fairly in depth, I came to dislike him quite a bit for the petty tyrant he was. Winning battles from already over wars, forcing men, women, and children out of their homes and to their deaths to steal their land and ignoring the law to do so doesn't make him any more bad ass then Hitler was a bad ass because he got people to do some pretty horrendous gak. I am well aware of what he did, what people think he did, and I don't care for the man.

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Ah ok.

-Jackson kicked the crap out multiple Seminole tribes.
-Jackson delayed the Civil War by threateneing to hang any politician who spoke of such.
-Jackson kicked the gak out of the British army with a polyglot of Cajuns, pirates, local natives, and a few regulars. Lets restate. Under Jackson the French actually won a battle. I know I know its just crazy talk but yea the French actually did win a battle.

That is a wonderful example of what is called spin. One mans bad-ass is any reasonable persons jack ass. Having had to study that time period fairly in depth, I came to dislike him quite a bit for the petty tyrant he was. Winning battles from already over wars, forcing men, women, and children out of their homes and to their deaths to steal their land and ignoring the law to do so doesn't make him any more bad ass then Hitler was a bad ass because he got people to do some pretty horrendous gak. I am well aware of what he did, what people think he did, and I don't care for the man.

The British were on our land. They died. Thats not being an ass, thats being a hero.
Fighting the Seminoles ( I may be wrong I forget if this was Georgia or Florida). You're putting 21st century PC standards on an early 19th century situation. The Indian wars were a real event, with tragedies on all sides. Besides now we have a cool mascot.

Frazzled wrote:You're putting 21st century PC standards on an early 19th century situation.

Not really, perhaps if you were delve more into the subject beyond a cursory "RAH RAH USA" sort of attitude toward the subject you'd find he had quite a large pool of dissenters even (if not especially) in his time. You might start by looking up Henry Clay. He had solid backing from the illiterate, but once you started moving beyond that he his base is less stable.

Frazzled wrote:The Indian wars were a real event, with tragedies on all sides. Besides now we have a cool mascot.

And more evidence you don;t actually know wtf you are talking about. The Trail of Tears targeted the Natives that lived in houses and alongside other Americans in peace for a long time and were his allies in the previous conflict. We were not at war with these Indians. These were not the Plains Wars you seem to be thinking of but good decent people that had worked on assimilating and getting along with their neighbors. We had treaties with these people and they were good neighbors and Jackson took everything they had at gunpoint after they helped us. Instead of becoming violent they took their case to the Supreme Court which ruled in their favor (considering the time period that is fairly amazing) and said that Jackson was both subverting the constitution as well as breaking treaty agreements and he ignored the ruling. A man who attacks and torments his own people and allies is not someone to be admired.

Once again, I really think you are using 'bad ass' as a euphemism for 'good', and that is not how the term is being applied.

Bad Ass
Noun: A tough, aggressive, or uncooperative person.
Adjective: Tough or aggressive: "a badass temper"

Stomping the crap out of everyone, friend, foe or would be assassin, is indeed bad ass. Was he also a dick? Yes, but that has no bearing on whether he was a bad ass.

So I suppose we should put William Tecumseh Sherman in the ring then.

Not a nice guy, but he really didn't feth around.

Monster Rain wrote:So I suppose we should put William Tecumseh Sherman in the ring then.

Not a nice guy, but he really didn't feth around.

What just because you burn down a city or two people get all bent out of shape...

Bromsy wrote:Once again, I really think you are using 'bad ass' as a euphemism for 'good', and that is not how the term is being applied.

Bad Ass
Noun: A tough, aggressive, or uncooperative person.
Adjective: Tough or aggressive: "a badass temper"

Stomping the crap out of everyone, friend, foe or would be assassin, is indeed bad ass. Was he also a dick? Yes, but that has no bearing on whether he was a bad ass.

Usually when I hear someone referred to as bad-ass they are meaning that something is cool becuase of how hard as nails the thing is. If using it in this context I will concede the point.

Ahtman wrote:

Bromsy wrote:Once again, I really think you are using 'bad ass' as a euphemism for 'good', and that is not how the term is being applied.

Bad Ass
Noun: A tough, aggressive, or uncooperative person.
Adjective: Tough or aggressive: "a badass temper"

Stomping the crap out of everyone, friend, foe or would be assassin, is indeed bad ass. Was he also a dick? Yes, but that has no bearing on whether he was a bad ass.

Usually when I hear someone referred to as bad-ass they are meaning that something is cool becuase of how hard as nails the thing is. If using it in this context I will concede the point.

Well, at least we can put Hitler and Pol Pot up there now.

EDIT: Actually, if we're using "uncooperative" as the definition now, the meaning becomes so broad in the political hemisphere it's essentially useless.


@Ahtman: So how was he able to ignore the Supreme Court ruling?

Nasser, Ataturk, Assad, Khomeini, Taylor, and Mugabe too.

dogma wrote:Ataturk.

Hey, come on. Ataturk was a pretty cool guy.