Yeah I mean she’s, you know, bad. I mean, really bad. I mean, I don’t know if she’s actually as bad as Beckham - after all, she only killed children, it’s not like she missed a penalty in a WC quarter.
Nitpick… He was a loyalist not a traitor, his early mistakes not withstanding.
In Hawaii: King Kamehameha, who united the islands. A good second-place to Father Damien, helping the lepers on Molokai.
Villain? Probably any of the Committee of Safety who helped overthrow the kingdom.
What about Dole as a villain?
Trevor Chappell?
For Australians, it would be real difficult getting any kind of consensus. No politicians will get a unanimous tick, nor would many others. It would probably come down to a sportsperson. Phar Lap is one of the greatest heroes to Australia, and only last year the Sportswoman of the year was given to a race horse.
Historically, Hero Don Bradman and Villain Douglas Jardine works for me.
Yeah, plus, the more I think about it, even the terminology of “national hero/villain” suggests an almost children’s-level understanding of the term. It has to feel like part of the national folklore. Arnold may not have been quantitatively the most destructive person in American history, but his very name has become part of the national myth in ways that Tim McVeigh, bin Laden, or Hitler have not.
Nobody would have condemned him if he had chosen the British side at the beginning of the war. He probably would have even been okay if he had openly switched sides. But taking British money while still serving as an American officer is clearly treason. I’d say the same thing about a British army officer who accepted money from the Americans.
All pretty bad.
When I was growing up, it was a given that John was a Bad King, reinforced by takes of Robin Hood. I think his reputation has been somewhat salvaged and Richard I’s idolisation diminished since then.
Richard III has held a bad reputation ever since the Tudors smeared his name. And I’m pretty sure he did kill the Princes in the Tower.
Charles I was an awful King. Incompetent, arrogant. But I’m not sure evil is the word most would use.
But on the whole, I’m not sure we hold any particular monarch up as villain. I would pick Henry VIII - too much power in the hands of someone who knows no humility or restraint.
Hero has to be Churchill. And we do all burn Guy Fawkes on a bonfire once a year, so he’s our traditional bogeyman.
I forgot to add, my personal heroine is Elizabeth I - all her father’s charm and presence balanced with her mother’s intelligence. Given the time she lived in, when women were worth shit, she must have been ‘incredible’. She’s almost other worldly in my head.
If I remember that Time news at the turn of the 20th, the end-of-the-millennium UK poll showed William Shakespeare to be the greatest Englishman in history, followed by Isaac Newton. Churchill was somewhere in the top-10, as was David Loyd George.
Henry VIII was a pretty intelligent man as well. But he was essentially unrestrained, got lazy, and gave in to his excesses. Elizabeth, as a woman, could never act without some constraints so she was forced to keep thinking throughout her reign. If she had been a king rather than a queen, she probably wouldn’t have been as great.
Do you also condemn those in the abwehr who collected their paychecks from the Nazis but gave covert aid to the resistance and the British.
Arnold betrayed the men under them, but he was not a traitor to the American people.
Then again, this topic is more about perceptions. Mao murdered tens of millions of Chinese but he is still lionised by the average Chinese person because of their biased educational system. I shouldn’t compare relatively perfectly unbiased American educational system with China’s, but you must admit, history is simplified for the young, and it’s easier to hate a cardboard cutout than a man who made difficult choices in an uncertain time.
The fact she was as intolerant and kill-crazy as her sister, “bloody” Mary doesn’t put you off.
He’s probably the most popular, but I’m not too fond of him.
As for Fawkes, he’s hated less than he once was. Maybe because blowing up parliament doesn’t seem that reprehensible these days.
You aren’t looking at her through the time she lived in. Being intolerant and kill-crazy was how Monarchs kept their jobs - show me one who wasn’t. She would have been dead within a year otherwise. You forget that the entire Catholic world wanted rid of her, and probably half the Protestant as she was a woman. The fact that she hung on, strengthened her position and left England in a far more secure place is testament to her strong governance.
Mary, on the other hand, was an incompetent religious zealot who just wanted babies and didn’t give a shit about screwing her country over in the process.
Oh great, so she’s only good because she had to be :rolleyes:. God forbid a woman could ever just be really good at her job.
Henry VIII was a spoilt brat.
‘Greatest’ doesn’t equate to hero though, does it? I sort of read that as doing something to protect, defend or rejuvenate the country. His plays were great and all, but…
Isambard Kingdom Brunel, Darwin and Dickens always appear in those top 10s as well, as does Princess Di :smack:
Technically they were traitors. But in their case, I’d say their treason was excused by the extreme inhumanity of the regime running their country. But in my opinion, exceptions like that are rare - and I don’t feel they applied to either side in the American Revolution.
I disagree. If he honestly had changed his views on which side’s victory would best serve the American people, then he should have resigned his commission in the Continental army. To serve in the Continental army while working against the Continental government was treason.
Wow. Misunderstand a lot, do you?
No - we blame Greg 
I think you two actually agree.