FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Who is your favorite historical leader? and WHY?





Montressor
Who do you favor as a historical leader? What aspects make him or her your favorite, is it
  • Their charisma and popularity?
  • Their declared policy?
  • Ideological outlook, opinions and philosophy?
  • Their actual accomplishments, including
    • Unification/formation of a state,
    • Support of Culture,
    • Scientific advancements (as well as exploration),
    • Furthering of Civil Liberties,
    • Humanitarian efforts,
    • Economic growth,
    • Performance during a particular war,
    • Advancement of international relations,
    • And others
  • Or some other aspect


Please limit your response to PAST POLITICAL leaders and not current leaders as well as avoiding religious figures.
Captain Fertile
King Henry VIII of England (Henry Tudor) because he was a fat, chauvinistic, elitist, womanising, gluttonous, sex addicted tyrant who bent religion to his own ends and swept away all who got in his path – all that is (or was) great about us British! (Basically he was't restricted by Political Correctness)
Montressor
Captain Fertile wrote:
King Henry VIII of England (Henry Tudor) because he was a fat, chauvinistic, elitist, womanising, gluttonous, sex addicted tyrant who bent religion to his own ends and swept away all who got in his path – all that is (or was) great about us British! (Basically he was't restricted by Political Correctness)
Hmm, was he the best (worst) "fat, chauvinistic, elitist, womanising, gluttonous, sex addicted tyrant who bent religion to his own ends and swept away all who got in his path" in the world, or he just the best ... who happened to be a leader of Britain? Wink

In other words, you appreciate his apparent ability to be unaffected by cultural norms, and the ways he sought to fulfill his desires, and the needs of the nation (since he as the monarch was the nation). Kind of a, "who cares about them, I'll do it my way," spirit. I can see something admirable in that (even if I don't agree with his actions).
Zampano
Napoleon, because of this painting:
[img]www.core.org.cn/CN_NR/rdonlyres/Global/2/2D152639-53CD-4E22-937F-3EFC64892C61/0/chp_napoleon_horse_1.jpg[/img]
Note: Hum The Ride of the Valkyries as you view and admire this painting.
{name here}
I admire George Washington as a political leader because he was honest and humble enough to step down as a leader before his death.
Bannik
Hitler – He had everything, charisma, intelligence, charm and the love of a whole nation – only letdown was he was a maniac who was bent on murder of a single race.
Fright Knight
Hmm.. I'm a Filipino and I just read the biography of the first president of the Philippines. So I guess I would say that the best Political Leader for me is Emilio Aguinaldo. He was also a national hero. He was one of the Filipino leaders who lead the Filipinos against the Spanish colonizers and later against the Americans.

He led military troops without any formal military education. And guess what? During the Philippine revolution against the Spaniards, Aguinaldo defeated some of the finest generals of Spain. (That is again, without any formal military training). The only fault that Aguinaldo did (well in fact it was not a fault) was that he admired people with higher educational attainment that him and thus making him a very humble president. He also believed that he was not worthy to be a president and referred other people for the said position.

I will read more about his biography though. Because of his biography, i started to like him. I wish I was there in his time to see and observed how good he was as a military leader, and as a political leader.
jharsika
Bannik wrote:
Hitler – He had everything, charisma, intelligence, charm and the love of a whole nation – only letdown was he was a maniac who was bent on murder of a single race.


He did manage to convince (ie brainwash) a lot of people to believe something they didn't used to believe in. Pretty incredible. Obviously he was a pretty good strategist too since he managed to "take over" so many countries, surprising them over and over.
Yjaxygames
jharsika wrote:
Bannik wrote:
Hitler – He had everything, charisma, intelligence, charm and the love of a whole nation – only letdown was he was a maniac who was bent on murder of a single race.


He did manage to convince (ie brainwash) a lot of people to believe something they didn't used to believe in. Pretty incredible. Obviously he was a pretty good strategist too since he managed to "take over" so many countries, surprising them over and over.


Hitler was an incredible man. He just had wrong ideas about races etc.
Zampano
jharsika wrote:
Bannik wrote:
Hitler – He had everything, charisma, intelligence, charm and the love of a whole nation – only letdown was he was a maniac who was bent on murder of a single race.


He did manage to convince (ie brainwash) a lot of people to believe something they didn't used to believe in. Pretty incredible. Obviously he was a pretty good strategist too since he managed to "take over" so many countries, surprising them over and over.

In that case would you ackknowledge that Napoleon was an incredible man, too?
I suppose he was less murderously-insane than Hitler though.
Montressor
Zampano wrote:
In that case would you ackknowledge that Napoleon was an incredible man, too?
I suppose he was less murderously-insane than Hitler though.
It's interesting to study the events that let these "great men" gain power and achieve their great accomplishments, would Napoleon have conquered most of Europe if he didn't take over after a Reign of Terror, and would Hitler have been such a great person if his country wasn't suffering so much? Is it the person his/herself that is so great, are they simply a product of their times, or were they just the right person to harness/lead their countries in their specific time? I personally go for the last one, but that makes it hard to judge differing leaders/greats because they all lived under different circumstances. Some could say that President X was the greatest leader because he won Y War, would that same president have been such a great person if they had to prove themselves though economic performance in the absence of war and strife?
-(The main reason why I haven't "picked" a favorite leader yet)
Zampano
Montressor wrote:
Zampano wrote:
In that case would you ackknowledge that Napoleon was an incredible man, too?
I suppose he was less murderously-insane than Hitler though.
It's interesting to study the events that let these "great men" gain power and achieve their great accomplishments, would Napoleon have conquered most of Europe if he didn't take over after a Reign of Terror, and would Hitler have been such a great person if his country wasn't suffering so much? Is it the person his/herself that is so great, are they simply a product of their times, or were they just the right person to harness/lead their countries in their specific time? I personally go for the last one, but that makes it hard to judge differing leaders/greats because they all lived under different circumstances. Some could say that President X was the greatest leader because he won Y War, would that same president have been such a great person if they had to prove themselves though economic performance in the absence of war and strife?
-(The main reason why I haven't "picked" a favorite leader yet)

You're right. I suppose that every person has several million chances to send themselves down into history, as long as they make the exact series of decisions that will place them in a position of power. However, there are #illions of possibilities for us, and only a couple work. Also, as you mentioned, they'd have to be born accordingly, a variable no one can control.
Montressor
Zampano wrote:
However, there are #illions of possibilities for us, and only a couple work. Also, as you mentioned, they'd have to be born accordingly, a variable no one can control.
Which I think is one of the most common trait of "great people" (aside from Captain Fertile's favorite Wink ), they are "visionaries", they see the current trends patterns and events, and translate this data and use it to foresee the future. Once they do this, the impose their actions on their society to the specific purpose of manipulating and changing that future. The list of people is endless, including religious/philosophical, political, scientific, cultural, economic/business leaders. Do we judge them based off of the degree of "accuracy" in their vision of the future, or do we judge them based off of whether or not we like their vision of the future?

Hitler had a powerful vision of a German future, and came fairly close to accomplishing a large portion of that vision, do we say he was great because he was a great visionary, or do we despise him because he contradicts the vision of the future that we want, or do we seek to impartially judge him based on the incredible fervor he held for his future Germany (and the world).
Zampano
Search 'define:great' on Google.
*of major significance or importance; "a great work of art"; "Einstein was one of the outstanding figures of the 20th centurey"
*remarkable or out of the ordinary in degree or magnitude or effect; "a great crisis"; "had a great stake in the outcome"
*avid: marked by active interest and enthusiasm; "an avid sports fan"; "a great walker"; "an eager beaver"
*a person who has achieved distinction and honor in some field; "he is one of the greats of American music"

For #1, Hitler was certainly a significant person in the 20th century.
#2: The war that started as a cause to his rise to power was certainly great in effect.
In #3: He was an active member of what he created.
#4: "Honour"? I don't know if he honoured very much beyond the time in his own countrry while he still led Germany, but he certainly achieved distinction as a dictator, what we know him as.

In the Canadian Gage Dictionary, there is one entry for 'great' which runs this way: 5 noble; generous E.g. great man[/i]
I don't think this is the definition we mean when we call Hitler great but moral greatness is always disputable unless you have a set standard, such as the 10 Commandments . . . So was Hitler a great man morally?(10 Commandments) No, and that is a definite answer.

Otherwise, he is indeed a great man, as well as a great dictator.
Montressor
Zampano wrote:
Search 'define:great' on Google.

I don't quite recall asking what google thought about great people Wink (to be fair you had every right to do that), I want to know what you think are the qualities of a great person (which you have been candidly providing), and who is the person who best represents those qualities...you don't have to go off of what others think, Captain Fertile's choice is a fine example
Mrs Lycos
Zampano wrote:

I don't think this is the definition we mean when we call Hitler great but moral greatness is always disputable unless you have a set standard, such as the 10 Commandments . . . So was Hitler a great man morally?(10 Commandments) No, and that is a definite answer.

Otherwise, he is indeed a great man, as well as a great dictator.


Funny you choose as a parameter to measure his greatness exactly the opposite of what he believed....


Personally, I consider Alexander the Great one of the greatest leaders in History. I admire his passion and set mind to acomplish what he did. He won his first battle as a commander when he was 16, and by the time he was 33, when he died, he had conquered almost all of the known world ath the time. He had the vision, the intelligence, and the passion to become "The Great".
Octaeder
Yjaxygames wrote:
jharsika wrote:
Bannik wrote:
Hitler – He had everything, charisma, intelligence, charm and the love of a whole nation – only letdown was he was a maniac who was bent on murder of a single race.


He did manage to convince (ie brainwash) a lot of people to believe something they didn't used to believe in. Pretty incredible. Obviously he was a pretty good strategist too since he managed to "take over" so many countries, surprising them over and over.


Hitler was an incredible man. He just had wrong ideas about races etc.


The problem with Hitler as a leader... Now I'm not touching any of his ideas about his perfect race and the cleansing thereof, I'm literally only about the leader of his country... His problem was that he didn't know when to quit. People will tell you that he got Germany out of the economic funk they were in... Which was true. And that he improved German infrastructure with the Autobahns... Also true. Both signs of a great leader.

Selfishly sacrificing a large proportion of your country to death by sending them to fight in a war AFTER it had become unwinnable just because you're to stubborn to realise that your vision for Germany has failed is not the sign of a great leader. That's why for me Hitler can't be considered a great leader even in an abstract conversation. Too much of his actions stemmed from a selfish and insecure bid for power. Even the way his administration was structured, with 5 differently titled offices all with a similar role vying for Hitler's appreciation. In this system very little gets done and Hitler has too do very little, because the people under him are too busy fighting themselves to question their leader.

He may have been a good manipulator, but he wasn't a good leader.
vanille
I support Queen Elizabeth. She was terrific. Imagine being a woman during those times but still managing to control an entire nation. She even beheaded one of her 'lovers'. Now that takes a strong heart.
roboguyspacedude
Hitler. Despite his killing the Jews, he was an amazing leader, able to get his whole country to follow him with just speeches.
Mrs Lycos
Octaeder wrote:

Selfishly sacrificing a large proportion of your country to death by sending them to fight in a war AFTER it had become unwinnable just because you're to stubborn to realise that your vision for Germany has failed is not the sign of a great leader.


So for you a great leader has to surrender whenever he sees his vision falling apart? That wouldn't make a leader anywhere, nor make people remember him as they do.

Besides that, you may not know that Hitler wasn't a "perpetual" dictator, like Franco was, that is, he wasn't planning to be in power forever. Instead, he was creating an elite to continue his work, and he would retire as soon as the country was in peace. You may recall seeing in some movies a Hitler obsessed with city building, and he preferred to do that rather than continue in power.
qebab
Probably Winston Churchill, for his charisma and intelligence. Out of the numerous Churchill quotes and anecdotes, the "Half the people in this room are stupid" is my favorite.

I also enjoy reading about generals and military history during the first and second world war, but I'm not sure if I can pass them as leaders in this thread. If I am indeed allowed to do that, I'll have to say Erwin Rommel, for his sharp wit, cunning and unpredictability, and Gennadij K. Zhukov for much the same reasons.
WickedGravity
I will take a few steps back into time and think about a leader who single handedly expanded the empire of Macedonia to unheard of limits.

Alexander The Great.

he brought culture to jungles and brought culture from them. He intermingled them to the point where in some cases there was no distinction.

He was a massive figure of his time and worshipped almost as a god by his people.

If you ignore the historical inaccuracies of the abomination of a movie, you see that he was a compassionate man who merely wanted to see everything that could be seen and do everything that could be done.
truespeed
Its difficult to choose a favourite historical leader,as what made a great leader a 1000 years ago was conquest,whereas now such leaders "hitler" "saddam" are seen as mad or worse.

Now great leaders are thought of as those who are able to keep peace and prosperity within their own countries.

Anyway Il throw in some names

Ramesses II (Arguably the greatest of all Egyptian leaders)
Julius Caesar (Roman general)
Oliver Cromwell (and his new model army)
Montressor
truespeed wrote:
Ramesses II (Arguably the greatest of all Egyptian leaders)
I don't know, I kind of like Akhenaten (originally Amenhotep IV), who foolishly attempted, and to a degree succeeded in overthrowing the Egyptian theocracy and reestablishing the power of the Pharaoh. Shortly thereafter he was mysteriously assassinated (one theory includes the disenfranchised old priesthood as potential assassins)

His Wiki
CCFCExile
I'm going with Hitler. Take the Supremisism away he oozed national pride, murder was wrong but...

In less than 20 years he took a country in the mirky depths of rack and ruin and turned them into an international super power. The economy and the people were all healthy and he did it with nothing!

I think governments shopuld look at that as an example instead of discredit every whim of Nazism on the basis of race hate... Just take the racism out of the equation and take evrything else and use it.

I hope that comes across right, I don't want to be ridiculed!
HDirtwater
Abraham Lincoln gets my (first) vote.

Yes, we all know he freed the slaves. But what he went through as president, at least 3 assasination attempts (we know one actually worked), the country falling apart around him, inept generalship during the war, inept leadership in congress and in his own cabinet. He rose above all that to lead a nation through its worst period in history and win the Civil War to unify the country again.

He was too humble at the beginning of the war to tell the generals and the secratary of war what to do, and all it got him was disaster (both bull runs, Fredricksburg, Chancellorsville). When he put his foot down and chose Grant to lead the army, he won the war.

His (nearly) ad-libbed remarks at the Gettysburg memorial (y'know, the Gettysburg Address) are the stuff of legend. He begged Grant and Sherman to go easy on the South at the end of the war, but then got assasinated and Johnson botched all that to lead to a terrible reconstruction.

I really would love to have seen what would have happened if he had not been killed right after the end of the war....
HoboPelican
I am not a big fan of leaders, in general. It seems no matter how great the the deeds, they are usually rivaled by their misdeeds. But if I had to choose, it would most likely be Mohandas Gandhi. Using civil disobedience and non-aggressive tactics, he was instrumental in freeing India from Britain. He also was a proponent of women's rights and religious tolerance.

But for me, the important thing was his dedication to non-violence and, as far as I'm aware, his ability to not misuse the power he had.


BTW - I'm not an expert on him, so I'm open to correction on my facts.
HoboPelican
I am not a big fan of leaders, in general. It seems no matter how great the the deeds, they are usually rivaled by their misdeeds. But if I had to choose, it would most likely be Mohandas Gandhi. Using civil disobedience and non-aggressive tactics, he was instrumental in freeing India from Britain. He also was a proponent of women's rights and religious tolerance.

But for me, the important thing was his dedication to non-violence and, as far as I'm aware, his ability to not misuse the power he had.


BTW - I'm not an expert on him, so I'm open to correction on my facts.
Montressor
HoboPelican wrote:
But for me, the important thing was his dedication to non-violence and, as far as I'm aware, his ability to not misuse the power he had.
It helps to be fighting against a foe who has lesser moral standing in the conflict you are engaged in, as well as being assassinated shortly after the "peak" (per se) of your leadership (gaining independence from Britain), rather than die of old age after you've faltered. Not to say that Mohandas Ghandi wasn't a great person, since he was able to unify a very diverse people, lead a popular and largely non-violent revolution, ignore the caste system and appeal to everyone, and truly become the "great soul" of India (which is what Mahatma means).
HoboPelican
Montressor wrote:
It helps to be fighting against a foe who has lesser moral standing in the conflict you are engaged in, as well as being assassinated shortly after the "peak" (per se) of your leadership (gaining independence from Britain), rather than die of old age after you've faltered. Not to say that Mohandas Ghandi wasn't a great person, since he was able to unify a very diverse people, lead a popular and largely non-violent revolution, ignore the caste system and appeal to everyone, and truly become the "great soul" of India (which is what Mahatma means).


Yeah, it was the right time and place for Gandhi, but I wonder what you mean by not dying in old age. Wasn't he about 79 when killed? That seems pretty old, especially considering the times and the country he lived in.
Montressor
HoboPelican wrote:
but I wonder what you mean by not dying in old age...

Old is relative. Ghandi was in the prime of his leadership, mature but not senile Wink .

In other words, he didn't decline and undo the very things he worked for (like Wordsworth the radical who turned old and more conservative becoming the epitome of the very ideas he ridiculed and combated against in the great poems of his youth and Hitler who was the undoing of his plan because he pushed too hard (opened multiple fronts by attacking Russia) as well as multiple other "greats").

There's also the important term "of" that I used, rather than "in".
palavra
The following is from Michael Hart's book and lists Prophet Muhammad as the most influential man in History. A Citadel Press Book, published by Carol Publishing Group
Ranking of the twenty from the list of 100:

Prophet Muhammad
Isaac Newton
Jesus Christ
Buddha
Confucius
St. Paul
Ts'ai Lun
Johann Gutenberg
Christopher Columbus
Albert Einstein
Karl Marx
Louis Pasteur
Galileo Galilei
Aristotle
Lenin
Moses
Charles Darwin
Shih Huang Ti
Augustus Caesar
Mao Tse-tung
shwetanshu
Subhash Chandra Bose, popularly known as the forgotten hero, i like him coz he idd the things the way he felt were correct and was instrumemtal in helping in India's freedom..
bassman
Since we are supposed to avoid religious figures, I'd have to say that my favorite political figure is probably Abraham Lincoln, because he was resilient through defeat, and there's evidence that he fought debilitating depression most of his life. Of course, his dedication to the unity of the US and in the process, the emancipation of the black slaves of this country are great achievements that we have reaped great rewards from (however imperfect).
bond4154
Despite seeming very controversial, I have found myself very fond of Adolf Hitler. Never mind the fact that the genocide was horrible and never justified; Adolf Hitler, though his charisma and his (twisted) ideology spurred a defeat nation of Germany from a poor country torn apart by World War I and warring red and white factions fighting for control over the country to one of the world's most powerful nations. He was the one who came up with the concept of the highway and paratroopers. No other 20th century leader like Hitler (with the possibility of some Communist Chinese leaders) utilized propaganda like Hitler. He was the icon of a historical underdog story gone wrong. But, yet, even with the tragedies and the genocides and the atrocities, we should remember that Hitler was a very patriotic German, albeit one with a very lethal and dangerous ideology, and that he was definitely a successful leader.
kiranaghor
Gandhi was the most powerful man in the history. The title of his autobiography : 'My experiments withthe Truth' reveals it.
j_f_k
Many worthy contenders here have been posted, Ghandi, Lincoln, Churchill -

I'll take issue with Hitler. A sick opportunist who was in the right place at the right time (or wrong place at the wrong time, depending on your point of view). Yes Germany is great today, and yes Hitler is responsible for a few commendable innovations however Germany was a great nation prior to WWI - and took the biggest beating by far policitally and economically in its aftermath - and however time heals all wounds and Germany was always going to bounce back on the strength of the post-war boom.

Not mentioned yet are are 2:

Q Victoria - she gave education to the masses - this repercussions of this can't be overestimated - witness the technological revolution that started towards the end of the 19th century and into the present - such a pity Mr bLiar and his party of incompetents are currently undoing all this good work as we speak.

Gorbachev - why? he managed to rise to the top one of the worlds most corrupt policital networks with the intention of dismantling it and succeeded. Thanks to him communism is no longer taken seriously at any level. Yes I know russia is in a bad way but in the long term they are and wil be better off
homec
Hitler had a hatred against Jews mainly because he was rejected from a art school ran by them, or something like that.. He was very passionate about his art and after being rejected. Emotions got the better of him. He was definitely a very strong leader.. Any country would have prospered under him..
jsk02a
Teddy Roosevelt, hand down.

He was a rough and tough guy who grew up a sickly child. Domestically, as a President, he held to his guys and improved the lives of thousands of people. He was a natural orator and statesmen, but also led the Roughriders, an outstanding group of horsemen that were the equivalent to our special forces groups today. Overall, Teddy Roosevelt was a great guy...who doesn't like him? Smile
poiko123
Ronald Reagan. The way he cut government spending, sent the economy of of U.S. through the roof, dismantled the communist east (well, at least the USSR), and handled all of the situations in office including the Iran situation just made him the standard of conservatives in America. He was not a war hawk or a bigot, but was stern and made the U.S. the world power, not one of the two. In pre-20th century times...perhaps Louis XIV. Something about the legacy he left behind and all of the construction done during his reign is particularly appealing to me. I can't exactly explain the impression I get from him, but I like him none the less.
YushuaMalik
I really liked Mansa Musa of Mali.

He was a ruler who had the ability to balance piety and great ruling together, and that's hard to say for any Muslim leader for today. I was also touched by his story when he went to make Hajj. He went to Makkah rich, and came back to Mali with nothing, because he donated his gold to those who were poor.
mia0009
Alexander the Great - charismatic, young, undefeated, and forever immortalized in history as a prodigy of warefare and one of the most successful military commanders. even excluding the admirable ambition, the fact that he conquered the persian empire is just unbelievable. in all ways, a human legend.
JavaAppleT
Genghis Khan anyone? The great leader who united the Mongol tribes into the Mongol Empire, which is the largest contiguous empire in world history.
Read more from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_khan

I also like Kang Xi, the emperor of Manchu Qing Dynasty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kang_Xi
lightsout
I have always been fascinated with John F. Kennedy. There are so many mysteries surrounding him and his life (with his assassination being one of the obvious ones). He had problems with the FBI and CIA, the Cuban Missle Crisis/Bay of Pigs, he was known to have a few affairs (Marilyn Monroe anyone?), he had ties to the Mafia, and of course the assassination in particular.

He had so many enemies who wanted him out of office, and I cannot wait for the CIA to release the files regarding him so everyone can find out the truth.
georgekalathil
roboguyspacedude wrote:
Hitler. Despite his killing the Jews, he was an amazing leader, able to get his whole country to follow him with just speeches.
Yes Hitler was an amazing leader with a strong personality. He was also a brave leader who wasnt afraid of his oppositions......
tuncadogus
Mustafa Kemal Atatόrk.
He has got all leader ability.
Moonspider
tuncadogus wrote:
Mustafa Kemal Atatόrk.
He has got all leader ability.


An obscure choice to most people outside of Turkey, but arguably a good one. I'd certainly place him ahead of some of the other names mentioned here.

I'm sure Americans and Europeans would have readily recognized his name in the early 20th Century. Alas, so much is forgotten by cultural memory in so short a time.

Respectfully,
Moonspider
hilariouslicorice
important leaders to me are more of inspiring people who lived well and generously than people who led successful military campaigns or publicity campaigns. I'd say Emma Goldman and Harriet Tubman were two great leaders!
Dark_Jedi06
It's a difficult a choice, I admire quite a few historical figures...George Washington in particular.

While his military career was a resounding success, what I'm more impressed by were his post-revolution contributions. Despite wanting to retire to his Virginia estate, he put his country first and accepted the role as president. What I find even more admirable is the fact that he could have had the power of an absolute monarch, but rejected it in favor of the democracy he had so gallantly fought for. When Washington's generals approached him with an offer to become the permanent and unconditional leader of the United States, he declined, saying, "I did not fight against George III to become George I".

I'm also greatly inspired by Franklin Roosevelt. Not only did he have resounding success with bringing the United States out of the Great Depression, but he had a charisma and personality that was simply incredible at inspiring the loyalty of the disheartened American public. More important, however, was his conviction. Despite the isolationism of the American people and the apathy of the European powers towards Hitler, Roosevelt knew that Nazism had to be stopped and did everything in his power to end it. Even while the United States refused to get involved, Roosevelt supported the British from the side while preparing his country for the war he knew would come. It's a shame that he died before VE-Day.
roboguyspacedude
I think Ulysses Grant was a good war leader because he managed to defeat the south at Gettysburg and did after somewhat with the civil war for the north. He however was not a good president.
Related topics
What your favorite song and why?
Bible Compiled By Demonic Roman Empire
Age Of Empiers 3 Favorite Civilization?
what's your favorite color and why?
What is your favorite game?
Who is your favourite historian person and why?
Favorite Cigar?
Your favourite animal and why?
Historical simulation video games!
What is your favorite song?
Favorite animal??
your favorite university
What is your favorite sport and why?
What's your Favorite Sports and Why?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> History

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.