Favorite and Least Favorite pre-1900 People?

Favorite: This one is easy as heck, as no one comes even close to John Philoponus . This guy in the 6th century noted that:

"But this (the Aristotlean idea that time taken by a body to fall is inversely proportional to its mass) is completely erroneous, and our view may be corroborated by actual observation more effectively than by any sort of verbal argument. For if you let fall from the same height two weights of which one is many times as heavy as the other, you will see that the ratio of the times required for the motion does not depend on the ratio of the weights, but that the difference in time is a very small one. And so, if the difference in the weights is not considerable, that is, of one is, let us say, double the other, there will be no difference, or else an imperceptible difference, in time, though the difference in weight is by no means negligible, with one body weighing twice as much as the other."

Commentary on Aristotle's Physics, pp. 678.24 - 684.10 (http://homepages.wmich.edu/~mcgrew/philfall.htm)


Literally a thousand years before Galileo was a thing. Now he had a lot of wrong ideas for sure (theory of impetus and all that jazz), and was functionally a miaphysite (not always a good thing for anyone living under the rule of Constantinople), and so it is possible that his ideas would have never been particularly popular anyways. And considering the whole clusterfuck in the Near East that started in the mid sixth century and continued on, it is unsurprising that his ideas did not become well known until much much later. I do not subscribe to "ancient wisdom"/library of Alexandria BS, but the romantic in me does view him as a huge missed opportunity. If only the situation had allowed for it (i.e. no plague of Justinian and consequent butterflying of the remainder of the seventh century wars), we might have made significant earlier progress in science that would have led to a much more interesting world by 2017.

Not so favorite: This is a hard one, passing judgement on historical figures is not something I am comfortable with-especially since I can't claim to know everything about them. Leopold of Belgium seems a convenient option, as do the Conquistadors. I'll however go down another route and choose Peter Sabbatius Justinian. I can rant about his political decisions for a long time, and so will desist. He offers an excellent contrast with Philoponus at any rate, being the person who shut down the Neo-platonic Academy of Athens.

Dislikes ummm Cicero with a vengeance, Henry II, Henry VIII, Constantine XI

If I may ask, why Constantine Palaiologos? Not exactly a standard choice... .
 
W9k8M6Fm.jpg
Pshaw who's the barbarian, an Italian speaking patrician or some Greek pleb who blinded his own mother to become Basileus (ugh, Basileus and not simple Rex, leaves a bad taste in your mouth) :p
 
@Vasilas sorry won't quote, posting from phone and it's a pain to delete all that text above. Anyway, to your question, Constantine XI could have spared the people of the city much hardship if he had surrendered. By the end his position was obviously hopeless, especially once he knew the power of Ottoman artillert. His population was living in villages within the walls, using green spaces as gardens. His empire was like two or three coastal cities. The imperial title was a shambling joke by then. He could have swallowed his pride. But it's not like I hate him, just slightly dislike, it's just galling how much fanboyism there is for him.
 
Dislikes

Julius Caesar-- Genocidal mass murderer who put the nail in the coffin of the republic but also was a prototype for all tyrants to come.

Dishonorable mentions--
Constantine, Olaf Tryggvason, Henry the VIII

John Bell Hood, for sucking at your job, doing your cause great harm (yeah, I know your cause sucked but that's beside this point), and getting a lot of good people killed because you're an egotistical asshole who doesn't recognise how over your head you are. Yes, you're not the worst in this regard but you're the one I remember.

Likes
Vercingetrix, for almost decorating my least favorite persons head on a pike.

Julian the Faithful/Apostate

Patrick

Alfred the Great

Raud the Strong, for standing up to a tyrant with great courage.

Deganawida (the great peacemaker of the Iroquois Confederacy)

Francis of Assisi

Thomas More

Crazy Horse

Patrick Cleburne, for suggesting what he did. That took courage.

In general, people who find or seek a third option when the obvious choices are limited.
 
One of my favourite people pre-1900 is Nur Jahan, who was a widow who scandalously married a Mughal Emperor, and then when that emperor proved incompetent, she took the reins behind the throne and ruled the Mughal Empire quite competently.

My least favourite is the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, who expanded the empire's borders more than its resources could handle, and so caused its vicious decentralization and collapse, and with it doomed India to war and later colonization. As a staunch Mughalophile, I consider the empire's collapse immensely tragic.
 
Top