Poll
0%
7%
7%
7%
7%
43%
7%
0%
0%
21%
Originally posted by Captain REX
A referendum on what?Hmm, I'm not sure who to vote for. William Wallace helped liberate his country, whereas everyone else just shot people and robbed banks, as far as I know.
Are we comparing them on 'If you met this person in real life' or based on their deeds?
Base on historic accounts and testimonies on the individual.
Like someone could say Billy the Kid is the most dangerous because he was one of the quickest gunfighters in the west.
Then again, Wallace led armies to battle. So depending on the criteria...which of the two would be consider more dangerous?
Originally posted by Captain REX
A referendum on what?Hmm, I'm not sure who to vote for. William Wallace helped liberate his country, whereas everyone else just shot people and robbed banks, as far as I know.
Are we comparing them on 'If you met this person in real life' or based on their deeds?
William Wallace did not liberate his country. English stayed in Scotland as they had before. The battle continued after he was gone, for the exact same reason he was leading a battle.
And Scottish will have referendum for independence.
Originally posted by lil bitchinessWilliam Wallace had sex with the 10 year old princess so his offspring actually rules England...
William Wallace did not liberate his country. English stayed in Scotland as they had before. The battle continued after he was gone, for the exact same reason he was leading a battle.And Scottish will have referendum for independence.
William Wallace is overrated...and that's coming from a Scotsman...he won 1 battle...the battle of stirling bridge...got his ass kicked at Falkirk...everything else he did was just skirmishes...
my home city has alot of history from that period though...there's a plaque outside st paul's cathedral in the city centre that says something like "this is where William Wallace struck the 1st blow against the English by killing the son of the English govener of Dundee
anyone interested in it should check out the history of scotland on the bbc just now...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00fl9sw/A_History_of_Scotland_Hammers_of_the_Scots/
Originally posted by Bardock42
William Wallace had sex with the 10 year old princess so his offspring actually rules England...
Understatement I am afraid- she was 3 at the time.
But yes, Wallace lost hugely, was effectively fired by the Scots themselves and turned over by a Scot to the English.
Robert the Bruce fared rather better. However, trying to call any of these landed Scottish nobles 'outlaws' is streching it, I feel...
(Not, incidentally, that Scotland is part of England because of some evil military invasion. It was a polticial unification when Jmaes I took the throne, seeing as he was already King of Scotland)
(Not that THAT stopped the final English/Scottish battle at Culloden... which admittedly was pretty frigging evil on the English side, though no sides gave quarter in those days).
Meanwhile the idea of Scottish independence has been dealt a near-mortal blow by the credit crisis- because basically, an independent Scotland would have totally collapsed in it; London is having to bail it out. Amusingly, the ones who wanted independence were holding up Iceland as an example of how an independent Scotland could succeed...
Robin Hood- existent or not- is a candidate for most famous outlaw, I dunno about most dangerous.
Hmm, yeah, most dangerous is a bit ill defined. As is outlaw. I mean, for example you could say that Osama Bin Laden is more dangerous than most of those on that list, and he actually is mostly an outlaw...not saying that he is the most dangerous, just saying it's hard to decide how to even value that. Would you go by kill count, how would you include the fear they created. How about political changes in attitude or even lesser crimes.
Originally posted by UshgarakMeanwhile the idea of Scottish independence has been dealt a near-mortal blow by the credit crisis- because basically, an independent Scotland would have totally collapsed in it; London is having to bail it out. Amusingly, the ones who wanted independence were holding up Iceland as an example of how an independent Scotland could succeed...
dangerous.
that's only partly true...as Scotland contributes a massive amount to the UK and Europe through it's oil industry
but yeah...Alex Salmond and his "arch of prosperity" pretty much sounded the death knell for his independance idea
i personally wouldn't want independance...it serves no real economic or political purpose other than silly patriotism...the majority of Scots would end up far worse off
Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, yeah, most dangerous is a bit ill defined. As is outlaw. I mean, for example you could say that Osama Bin Laden is more dangerous than most of those on that list, and he actually is mostly an outlaw...not saying that he is the most dangerous, just saying it's hard to decide how to even value that. Would you go by kill count, how would you include the fear they created. How about political changes in attitude or even lesser crimes.
Yes in this vain I would have to say Genghis Khan. Key words "Dangerous" and "History" and outlaw to anyone who wasn't of the Mongol tribe. He was ruthless. There is Historical evidence (Written accounts and archaeological) that he slaughtered 100's of thousands that didnt capitulate and, the only thing that kept him from slaughtering 100's of thousands more in Western Europe was his death. So my vote is...... Temujin A.K.A. Genghis Khan .
Then you have:
Adolf Hitler, Deutchland
Kim Jung Ill,Korea
Pol Pot , Cambodia
Mau tse Tung, Chine
So what are the parameters? World Law? Local Law? or just the people you mentioned in the pole?
If thats the case I would have to say,
Jesse James
Originally posted by jaden101
that's only partly true...as Scotland contributes a massive amount to the UK and Europe through it's oil industrybut yeah...Alex Salmond and his "arch of prosperity" pretty much sounded the death knell for his independance idea
i personally wouldn't want independance...it serves no real economic or political purpose other than silly patriotism...the majority of Scots would end up far worse off
Oh for sure, Scotland contributes loads, though that's an intensly complicated area.
The whole point of the Union is that we acheive far more together than apart. I've never quire understood the point of breaking thar up for what you so rightly cal silly patrotism
Heck, even Cornwall talks about it sometimes. Gah.
Anyway, yes, so shall we define this as 'outlaw people were the most scared of' then?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Oh for sure, Scotland contributes loads, though that's an intensly complicated area.The whole point of the Union is that we acheive far more together than apart. I've never quire understood the point of breaking thar up for what you so rightly cal silly patrotism
Heck, even Cornwall talks about it sometimes. Gah.
Anyway, yes, so shall we define this as 'outlaw people were the most scared of' then?
yeah all this talk of regional government...all it would mean is more beauracrats and more taxes....we already have the UN, European Union, Westminster (and in Scotland's case Hollyrood) making laws...Wales has their assembly and Northern Ireland has Stormont...then there's local councils too
utterly pointless and huge wastes of money for the most part
but yes...uuhhh...most feared outlaw?...Keyser Soze 馃槅