@Tyran ... let's do it. Let's dive into the depths of hell and dig out the very worst of em.

@TrPrado ... pretty sure Hitler killed more Jews than Augustus and... well... yeah. You kinda... umm...

Good night, webDip...

I never mentioned Hitler. He's irrelevant to my point.

I know, I just like to point it out.

The best way to sum up Napoleon's accomplishments is that he standardized modern Europe. Which is actually an extremely big deal.

napoleon

As far as I'm concerned, the idea that Napoleon was responsible for the founding of the modern German state or nation is laughable. Like Hitler was responsible for the beautiful modern Coventry cathedral? If, as a result of occupying and sending his armies running roughshod over the German-speaking kingdoms and petty princedoms, he created the conditions for a number of legatee enlarged princedoms and countries (Prussia, Bavaria and Hanover) as a result of the laughably named Peace of Westphalia (which gave most of Napoleon's creation to Prussia). Napoleon's purpose in combining small German states into things like Westphalia, whose constitution was progressive, in order to exercise more immediate cfontrol over them. The country was relatively poor but Napoleon demanded heavy taxes and payments, and conscripted soldiers. And besides giving his brother, Jérôme, the Kingdom, his purposes are the same as yours would be in conquering areas in Crusader Kingdoms = that you control of a multitude of small areas by creating a over-arching state.

If you're a student of Latin and History Prsado, I suggest you beware of taking your viw of history (i.e. Julius Caesar) from his own writings... JC simply continued the conflict between the Senate and dictator that had existed in a highly volatile situation from the Gracchi brothers onwards, whereas Augustus brilliantly stabilised the situation.

As for using modern standards of judgement on the use of genocide as a matter of imperial control, a continually revolting subject nation was always subjected to destruction like this - read the Bible! Caesar wiped the Helvetii, Genghis depopulated huge areas of the Middle and near Middle East. So let's not use anachronistic arguments, eh?

Just like to add the Harrying of the North to the list of so called "genocides"

You're all looking at this the wrong way.

No Napoleon?

No "War and Peace," no "Vanity Fair" (and we'd all be worse off with no Becky Sharp!) and no "The Adventure of the Six Napoleons," the classic Sherlock Holmes case.

No Augustus?

You could argue no "Aeneid" then, but that's a shakier argument...

HOWEVER, given the Vergil love we have around here, I think we all know how that'd go. (Well, Tolstoy might vote for Napoleon and "War and Peace," just a guess, but otherwise...)

As I said, TGY, mass depopulation of a rebellious area has been a tool of governments for ever. Another example is the enclosures, whose effects were widespread n the then Great Britain, but the most grievous effects went under the name of clearances (though a large proportion of the Scots nobles (most notably the Campbells) *spit* were complicit). Using modern measures out of context in historical circumstances is a specious anachronistic debating tool that has no place in a serious historian's arsenal.

Campbell + spit ==> +1

Chumbles, while I agree on the mass depopulation thing, which is why I pointed out that the person they say is so great is no better than his predecessor, Napoleon truly was responsible for a bit of Germany. They had a common language, and he gave them their necessary common experience that saw the rise of German nationalism. And there really was a great rise of German nationalism under his reign, and they all cited Napoleon as their reason for identifying as part of the same people. And you undershoot Caesar. He instituted social and political reforms that very well would handle Senate corruption. He also trained several political prodigies that all shaped Rome after his death and went off of his ideas.

Obi, how is the "no Aeneid" argument shakier. I'd bet that either writer would have written great things without the respective leaders, but both were essential to the works that were written.

Obi don't forget the count of Monte cristo. Heavily dependent upon a post Napoleonic France to set up key plot points

OK, TrPrado, I do think you have a point, but nonetheless, in both your champions cases they failed. One was murdered and the other lost and spent the rest of his life on St Helena. But I too admire Caesar, especially for Alesia.

@ghug: Maybe you could educate me, but while Augustus obviously did play a big role in making the Aeneid happen, I can see it happening without him easier than the other works I referenced.

Granted it's a modern perspective, but even then, even if it took until today, someone, it seems, would've written a Trojan POV story as a follow-up to Homer's epic, whereas you obviously can't have stories that have major plot points dependent upon Waterloo or the greater Napoleonic Wars with no Napoleon.

Put another way, the Napoleon stories are all "originals," whereas the Aeneid is a follow-up to an already-successful franchise (and I'm being extremely loose with that analogy, so no need to be pedantic and point that out, I'm just saying a follow-up to a great work, by the original author or someone else, is more likely than an "original" work, if only because great works seem to inspire sequels and prequels, whereas an original work starts from scratch, so who knows if it will be a hit, or even come to fruition and be published.)

ALSO keep in mind my post was more of an offhand quip than a genuinely serious argument. ;)

The Aeneid is a giant piece of glorious Augustan propaganda. The story already existed, but the way it's told makes it great. Augustus is essential to its existence.

Augustus also stopped the only copy from being burned when Vergil died, so it absolutely wouldn't exist without him.

@Ghug Latin Student Verified!

James, you didn't pick up on that when I was hating on Caesar?

Alexander the Great failed in a number of aspects too, but he's still in this.

@ghug:

I'd say Augustus is more essential to its production than its existence...

By which I mean he played the enormous roles in having it produced and preserved, as you say, but still, it COULD exist without him, someone else could've written that epic (as you say, the story idea was already there), whereas you can't write grandiose novels centered on the Napoleonic Wars interrupting British and Russian life if, well, there was no Napoleon.

Also, what's the hold up in moving onto the next votes?

Thanks vBob - just noted the +1... although I had a friend who was a Campbell (with a Welsh accent!), I had a lovely secondary school teacher who told us kids about the clearances and the role the Campbells had as Georgian pawns... she was, of course, a Cameron, but there are/were a lot of other clans who were driven out, like the Lovats.

Augustus: 14
Napoleon: 7

Much like in his life, it took a really pissed off coalition to defeat the great and superior Napoleon. You have exiled Emperor Goodpart to Saint Helena. And so forth goes Augustus, preparing to exile the great Ovid as well. What an ass.

Remaining Historical Figures:

Leaders:
*10. Augustus
*24. Alexander the Great

Artists:
26. William Shakespeare
27. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
*28. Johann Sebastian Bach

Scientists/Inventors:
6. Aristotle
10. Norman Borlaug
*13. Albert Einstein

Wild Card:
*1. Buddha
10. Jesus
11. Rene Descartes

New Matchup:

Artists: William Shakespeare vs Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Note: Vash needs to update the brackets:
http://challonge.com/webDipGreatestLeaderBrackett
http://challonge.com/webDipGreatestArtistBrackett
http://challonge.com/webDipGreatestScientistBrackett
http://challonge.com/webDipGreatestWildCardBrackett

Able was I ere I saw Elba.

You could say, Napoleon came up a little short in this round.

MOZART

Fuck Shakespeare. Seriously.

inb4 obi attacks bo to all hell.

inb4 obi has moral dilemma about having to choose between his two favorites.

Shakespeare

This is difficult... These both deserve to be here.