Great Britons

A BBC poll a few years ago revealed that the British public believed that Winston Churchill is the greatest Briton ever. I disagree. I believe what William Shakespeare, Isacc Newton, Issambard Brunel and Chalres Darwin have been far more important to our lives.

Churchill may have 'led' our troops to victory in World War 2, but Darwin came up with the theory of evolution, most of modern day physics stems from Newton's work, and without Shakespeare, the English language (the most spoken language in the world) would be significantly different.

I was wondering if anyone agreed with me, and if there has been similar pools in other countries, such as the USA.

without Shakespeare we'd not have to do painful weeks of studying plays so comlex it causes horrid stress and loses social time

i agree theres been alot more important brits like he guys who invented football rugby and other sports the brits who have made art made novels games computers food and modules like planes ships and cars!

sport, police, war, language and philosophy Heros they come before churchill

Maybe we could add Bobby Moore, Geoff Hurst, David Beckham, Johnny Wilkinson, Steve Redgrave and Kelly Holmes to the Great Briton list!

3 words John Logie Baird, the invntor of the Joy-Box(TV)

also ALexander Graham Bell inventor of the Telephone

Alexander Flemming- discovered penecilin

Tony Blair- proved that we'd vote for a liar 3 times

and also all these people are Scottish so i get bonus points :D

:choc:

don't forget alfred the great he fought of the vikings and burnt some cakes.

oh how silly of me i almost Forgot

Pink Floyd, Iron Maiden, Wishbone Ash, Sisters of Mercy, Judas Priest, Deep Purple and Radiohead, and many others

:choc:

How could I forget Logie Baird, he invented the TV in my home town.

How about John Lennon too?

Actually, there's a current contest going on right now in the States which is listing the 100 greatest Americans and most, sadly enough, are celebrities.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Captain

How about John Lennon too?

Actually, there's a current contest going on right now in the States which is listing the 100 greatest Americans and most, sadly enough, are celebrities.

Take care all.

---

thats really crap, i could probably think of 100 great americans that arent celebrities, but im not gonna list them :choc:

actually tony blair isn't scottish........

baird - didn't really invent the tv. it would be like saying that the man who invented the gas light invented the ligh bulb.

bell - arguagbly stole the telephone idea.

darwin - the theory of evoltuion is a little flawed at best.

shakespeare - did not change the english what so ever.

churchil - a truly great war leader

sports heroes? - yeah cos they really changed the way you life your lives.

music people? - yeah cos that's something that is far better than inventors, engineers, genuises and leaderss.

churchil deserves his place near the top. he may not have been the defining reason why we won the war but he was a great war-time leader. he gave inspiration in britains darkest hours and deserves recogintion for that. do not put him beside people who kick a ball for money or play guitar.

books, games and music are not what greatness is about. it's about changing lives, perception, times, ideas or history. brunel, churchil, darwin (though it's got holes), hawkins (i don't trust it though), newton, rommel, geldof, the guy who made the internet (not al gore) , diana (though i don't like her at all.)

there are far greater people than bloody david beckham. get a grip.

actually Tony Blair is Scottish, he wasnt raised in Scotland but he was born in Edinburgh which makes him Scottish :choc:

being born somewhere does not make you that nationality. if my parents where on holiday in china when i was born would not make me chinese.

Holy crap, I'm agreeing with Cloud 9? Gimme a minute while I look outside the window to check for meteors... When he's not busy calling me a Nazi, he can apparently come up with a couple pretty good ideas....

However, I disagree about the nationality thing. In most nations, if you're born there, you're considered a citizen--that's why there's a big scandal now, where people slip across the US border, get free neonatal care and childbirth services (hospital, doc, etc.), and then since their child was born in the US he or she is a US citizen.

I don't know whether or not Tony Blair was raised there or not, but as far as where he's officially 'from', it's probably where he was born.

Shakespeare changed the english language? he created 3000 english words! was a great writer (will people be forced to read YOUR work in 400 years?) to say he did not effect it is rather blind. Even you know the story of Romeo and Juliet, a 400 year old story if he wasn't so great would you not know it at all? Anyway, Although he is a great briton I don't think he is the best, I think Queen Liz I was.

What did she do?

Only defeated the Spanish Armada and made England the most powerful naval state in the world. As well as improved English relations with the rest of Europe, and an overall excellent ruler, if the history books are correct, but when are they ever right?

That and I admire her for using her feminity in a time of it being a liability as a asset, and by having the kings of europe drooling at her feet secured her nation's future, oh and make a bankrupt nation a rich and full economy too....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squinn

oh how silly of me i almost Forgot

Pink Floyd, Iron Maiden, Wishbone Ash, Sisters of Mercy, Judas Priest, Deep Purple and Radiohead, and many others

:choc:

---

My vote for best brits be these. :cool:

How 'bout Johnny Rotten? God Save the Queen, baby.

you se redneck we aren't so different.

you don't gain citizenship by being born in a country, nor do you gain nationality.

shakespeare did not change the english language. he wrote for the lower classes of the time and was not the greatest playwright either. the guy who wrote faust was. but he died like really really young and so didn't get to write much. language is not changed by one man. it's a gradual cultural thing. shakespeare is over rated purely because he wrote so much and everyone is forced to read him.

as for music people. god danmn it. they did not change anything of any great significance (except geldof) or a greatly important to the history of the nation. truly great people are the ones that are going to be remembered 250 years from now and then still have documentarys about them and their works. musicians will be a blip on the historic world and will not be remembered by any historian. truly great people will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

being born somewhere does not make you that nationality. if my parents where on holiday in china when i was born would not make me chinese.

---

yes, but the fact that tony blair has a scotish father and irish mother means he isn't all that english.

Quote:

---

shakespeare - did not change the english what so ever.

---

You mean other than revolutionize and completely change the english language?

Quote:

---

music people? - yeah cos that's something that is far better than inventors, engineers, genuises and leaderss.

---

One could argue that many of the greatest musicians have been geniuses. In fact, to say that "music people" are not as good as inventors and geniuses is absurd. (unless your talking about pop musicians). The fact is though, that the great composers were some of teh greatest human beings to have ever graced the face of this planet. You don't give them enough credit. (I can't recall any great composers who were british though, although I know there were some.)

Quote:

---

How 'bout Johnny Rotten? God Save the Queen, baby.

---

He is THE great briton.

winning WWII sounds alot more important to me then putting musical notes together and releasing it to the public. plus, although shakespeare was a great writer, i could go MY WHOLE LIFE without ever writing stupid crap about his plays in english class.

Yes but I think WWII would still have been winable without churchill, although he helped for sure.

Ahem...Shakespeare not a great writer?! A great writer isn't always the one who is easiest understood. The great writer teaches one to build with thier own mind, they teach you thinking and reasoning skills as you read, they teach you.

Shakespeare did all that. His writings are full of different meanigs and interpretations meaning it exercises your mind and helps you become better thinkers, and Shakespeare's plays, sonnents and writing in general can be window to his time period. You just have to look at it right.

To say writers, muscians, and such can not have as large an impact as war leaders is odd. Without the effects and ideas that previous writers/storytellers bestowed, Churchill may not have been how he was and never did anything. Many people are effected by writers, particually GOOD writers.

Now I still think philosphers are more important then writers(though many philosphers also wrote) becaues they come up with ideas, or build upon old ones in ways that many times are "unheard of".

Best britain from those I can think of would be Newton, or some such.. that or some philospher that I am missing.

Quote:

---

winning WWII sounds alot more important to me then putting musical notes together and releasing it to the public.

---

Im not sure I can totally agree with you here. That isn't a decision that can be easily made, as both have had incredibly huge impacts on our society. Without the advancement of the arts, society would be so incredibly shallow it would probably cease to function. Art is just as important as anything else.

Thank you Nik0tine for putting that in a much better way then I did. I don't always get my ideas accross well :rolleyes2

Don't worry. You most certainly aren't alone. I am not the best at articulating my thoughts and feelings either.

Quote:

---

To say writers, muscians, and such can not have as large an impact as war leaders is odd. Without the effects and ideas that previous writers/storytellers bestowed, Churchill may not have been how he was and never did anything. Many people are effected by writers, particually GOOD writers.

---

On the other hand, without Churchill every copy of Shakespeare in Europe just might have been burned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

(I can't recall any great composers who were british though, although I know there were some.)

---

Britain has produced a few pretty good composers. They were especially good in the Renaissance, with composers like William Byrd, John Dowland, and Thomas Tallis. More recently there's Ralph Vaugh Williams, Edward Elgar (for whom we owe the pleasure of the graduation march), and Benjamin Britten. Of course the best 'British' composer was Georg Frederic Händel, who lived and worked there for much of his career. Haydn also spent some time composing in Britain, although neither were of British descent.

I will assume The Redneck is being sarcastic with his remark. Anyways what we read has an undenable affect on us, but to tell the truth I don't know if Churchill read Shakespeare and actually READ it.. or not. But if he did it could have impacted him a fair bit, not to mention other writers/philosphers likely had impacts on him... most educated people, particualy in history, read works such as those I am loosely infering to.

Quote:

---

I will assume The Redneck is being sarcastic with his remark.

---

Actually, the Nazis were very well-known for their book-burnings. And since at least one of Shakespeare's plays (Julius Ceaser) was very critical of Rome (not a nice thing to say around people who said they were bringing back the glories of the Roman Empire, or the "First Reich"), then if his stuff wasn't already on the list it probably would be soon.

Oh yes the Nazi's were I know that much. But I was holding most to britain.. and I didn't think britain had a drive in that period to burn shakespeare. 'Cause I truely think Germany would have been stopped regardless of Churchill, though churchill helped.. I guess. I know one of my teachers isn't a very big Churchill fan, says churchill was overplayed. Then again this same teacher isn't the biggest fan of FDR either... he didn't like any of the WWII "leaders". *shrug*

Quote:

---

Oh yes the Nazi's were I know that much. But I was holding most to britain.. and I didn't think britain had a drive in that period to burn shakespeare. 'Cause I truely think Germany would have been stopped regardless of Churchill, though churchill helped.. I guess. I know one of my teachers isn't a very big Churchill fan, says churchill was overplayed. Then again this same teacher isn't the biggest fan of FDR either... he didn't like any of the WWII "leaders". *shrug*

---

I'm not a big fan of FDR myself, although I assume for different reasons than your teacher...

However--how would Germany have been stopped regardless of Churchill? Remember that by the time America got into the war, Germany had most of Western Europe, a good chunk of eastern Europe, was regularly bombing England, had V2 Rockets that could deliver a payload without risking a plane or pilot, and was working on both the nuclear bomb and another pact with Stalin that, had it succeeded, would have allowed him to focus all his energies on what was pretty much his last obstacle in the conquest of Europe--Britain.

To tell the truth I do not know ALL of what churchill did. But I do realize there was alot that lead to the fall of Germany. And I think Churhill/entrance of the US only played a part in it. If you take out one part many things can still work. And I think while it would have hurt the allied cause to have Churchill out of the picture I still think the whole machine would have worked.. even if the casulties had been worse.

Then again Churchill could have done something super stupendous that I do not know about.

As for why my teacher is not a BIG fan of FDR(teacher still says FDR was a *good* president but thinks he is too played up) I ain't 100% sure. But I know the overall dealings with pre-WWII and WWII didn't please teacher too much.. which is why he doesn't really like any leader during that time.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned John Locke.

Take care all.

churchil actully never prevented ab invasion of britain because none was ever planned.

before the war hitler had a jolly old plan for taking over most of earope and some of northern africa (he had a demented idea that the map of germany should look like an eagle for a while) and most of all he would like to bestest buds with britain. after all we had a jolly old empire nad he admired us very much. but after the sudentland stuff and the alliance wih poland he thought that he might not get to bestest buds with britain because they didn't seem to like him anymore. so he made a plan. he still wanted poland because it had lots of people to kill but fighting france and britain and russia all at the same time would have been a right problem. so he made a pact with the russians to scare away the british. it didn't work and for a while nothing happened, until dunkirk and we started bombing each other. this was often called the blitz short for blitzkreig but is very wrong. the blitzkreig refers to the use of an all out assualt using tanks and dive bombers to very quickly take a country as seen in france and spain and poland and lots of other places. as this never happened in britain it was not a blitz. it was lots of bombing to make us surrender and be nice to hitler again so he could get on with killing lots of russians. if we had surrendered during the battle of britain then almost certainly hitler would have went on with fighting russia and being able to take africa without a problem. britain was never in his plans for invasion he liked his third reich the way it was.

on that point just to point out that the first reich was not the roman empire. it was the holy roman empire which is different. the holy roman empire was the collectiuon of individual states that napeolen trampled on that existed until the german and italian revolutions with bismarck and all that stuff. the second reich was the german empire until 1918.

anyway enough of history lesson while churchil was not directly responsible for the victory in the second world war. he was a man who knew how to bolster morale and confidence in the darkest hours and won the war in that respect in that our civillian population didn't crumble under the pressure.

I've heard that half-way through the war, one of Hitler's war leaders tried to negotiate without Churchill, and told him that if Germany and Britian joined forces, they could rule the world.

They declared him mentally ill, and he spent the rest of his life in Scottish mental asylum.

That might be a load of rubbish, but I've definatly seen that somewhere.

Quote:

---

churchil actully never prevented ab invasion of britain because none was ever planned.

---

Fifth paragraph from the top.

Also here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here. (again, my apologies for the improper grammar--it was deliberate, as all the "ands" help to seperate the links.)