do you really admire or really identify with?

I have always felt a strong affinity with Mary Queen of Scots.   

There are lots.

I identify a lot with Oliver Goldsmith, he had this sort of oblivious, bumbling quality, like he never really knew what he was supposed to be doing that really appeals to me. Add to that a clear perspective of the absurdity of the world around him, and his own absurdity also - I can see a few resemblance's between us, if only I were as good a writer.

I really admire Samuel Johnson, for his firm moral backbone mixed with his great sense of humour - though I do not wish his depression.
I also admire Samuel Pepys the extreme vivacity and immediacy he lived and recorded his life, but do not envy his lack of control and pride.
There are lots of writers I 'd like to write like, especially Henry Fielding or Laurence Sterne.

Napoleon Bonaparte.  He was a great warrior in my opinion.

"Wars not make one great" - Yoda, back in the day when he was cool and not wielding lightsabres or advertising mobile phones.

....also, I'm not sure Napoleon knew his Arras from his Elba.

Quote from: Pica Pica on February 22, 2012, 05:00:57 PM
"Wars not make one great" - Yoda, back in the day when he was cool and not wielding lightsabres or advertising mobile phones.

....also, I'm not sure Napoleon knew his Arras from his Elba.

Haha love it I agree - he more ego than anything, and his invasion of Russia (akin to Hitler 130 years later) was plagued by mismanagement and poor planning. Although you can't argue that his determination to achieve what he wanted was phenomenal, especially to a become (arguably) one of the most important people in the World from relatively humble roots.

In response to this thread, theres no one I can think that I would identify with, although I really admire the steadfastness of Churchill during the war. Under siege for the best part of 6 years then going on the offensive with a bunch of demoralized, backs-to-the-wall populace, AND giving rousing speech after rousing speech shows how demanding that period was and how much Britain needed a leader like Churchill during that perilous time. But he was also a real human being, quite flawed, liked a drink but had a real good sense of humour too

Sorry if its a little obvious but im a proud Briton lol
x

I identify with Mary so much that I suspect that I am her reincarnation!   Shocking I know.

Quote from: Princess of Hearts on February 22, 2012, 06:20:13 PM
I identify with Mary so much that I suspect that I am her reincarnation!   Shocking I know.

Why, do you mind if I ask?

Btw love the quote/signature!
x

plagued by mismanagement and poor planning

Hey, any plan that includes a land invasion of Mother Russia is a poor plan.  It's so freaking insane that in all the years of the Cold War the War College of the US never (not once) had a strategic exercise (their equivalent of a thesis) for such an attack.  It is - given current military technology - impossible.

/PS - the USSR equivalent never planned for an invasion of the US either.

Haha true! If memory and high school history serves me correctly - the Russians adopted a 'Scorched Earth' policy that resulted in swathes of arable countryside being set alight, meaning no food for the horses or men. Also Napoleon buggered-up his supply train too, having much fewer horses to use as baggage trains than was needed.

Both Hitler and Bonaparte tried to conquer Russia quickly to ensure they had a safe right flank before focussing their full powers elsewhere, notably on the West - Britain, and later America in Hitler's case. Both got quite far - Napolean made it to Moscow, Hitler Stalingrad but both had to make hasty and extremely costly retreats.

Regarding the US "invasion" ~ thats interesting to know, although I always assumed they'd just blow the bejesus out of the USSR rather than launch a full-scale invasion. Interesting nonetheless

Lol sorry for kinda hijacking the thread!