Wellington, Hero or Villain?

King of Rome

This is another thread started due to an argument with a friend of mine (Bear with me, the alternate history part will kick in after some interest is generated). In your opinion, was Arthur Wellesley a hero or villain?

You may take any point in his career as soldier, politician, or private person to defend your opinion.
 

Spengler

Banned
Look he was a great military commander, but he really was on the low end of prime minsters, compared to Charles Gray and Robert Peel who were PMs during the same period.
 

King of Rome

Well, Easterling, I am assuming it is easy to see Wellington as one way or the other when looking at his military career... but... when they look at his life after Waterloo...
 

Last of the Stuarts

Wellington was a good general, he did everything that his political masters needed him to do.

As a politician he was a nightmare and if you look at the word reactionary in the dictionary you will see a picture of Wellington the PM.
 

Mikestone8

King of Rome said:
This is another thread started due to an argument with a friend of mine (Bear with me, the alternate history part will kick in after some interest is generated). In your opinion, was Arthur Wellesley a hero or villain?

You may take any point in his career as soldier, politician, or private person to defend your opinion.
Click to expand...

As military comander, certainly a hero. As politician, a mediocrity. I can't see anything particularly vilainous about him in either role.
 

Richter von Manthofen

As military commander - waiting for someone else doing his job, so more villain than hero, but in reality neither

As a politican - well it was the age of conservatism -
 

jkay

IMHO villain. He spent far more of his career on imperialist oppression than bringing down the IMHO villainous Nappy. Though, to be fair, I feel similar about our General Andy Jackson.
 

Color-Copycat

jkay said:
IMHO villain. He spent far more of his career on imperialist oppression than bringing down the IMHO villainous Nappy. Though, to be fair, I feel similar about our General Andy Jackson.
Click to expand...

That's actually a pretty interesting comparison to draw. I'll have to mull it over a bit when I'm thinking more clearly than at present.
 

Flocculencio

Donor
Simreeve said:
Not that either Tippu or the Maharatha rulers were exactly bastions of enlightened liberal democracy themselves, either...
Click to expand...

Local despots, however, don't tend to wipe out any economic activity besides resource extraction which is what the EIC did in India
 

Arafeel

Flocculencio said:
Local despots, however, don't tend to wipe out any economic activity besides resource extraction which is what the EIC did in India
Click to expand...

That is arguable, as it is a open question whether the fall of the Mughals or the EIC`s actions had the worst effect on the India economy. It is also debatable if the EIC actions actually had a negative impact on the economy at all. Off course, this is mainly due to the fact that the source material is for economy history for the sub-continent is bad, as well as this being a highly politicized question. But the we have had this talk before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top