Napoleon was a glorious civilized hero... Just because war is uncivilized doesn't mean he is uncivilized... Blaming him for all the chaos during his time, is silly unless you are royalty. And yes, he was extremely power hungry but all humans are extremely power hungry. He just wasn't a glorious civilized hero to the people against the revolution. In my opinion, Alexander was just a glorious conqueror, nothing more.

1) No, not all humans are extremely power hungry, no matter what extremely power hungry people may believe.

(and the same goes with other ideologically extrapolated traits, such as 'greedy, 'selfish', etc)

2) There is no such thing as a civilized (or civilizing) conqueror. Once you're in a conquest war, you're a barbaric prick. That's all.

Human beings do carry a bloated sense of self-importance. Even though it is delusional, it gives us our ambitions, our goals and a reason to live.

Human beings are by all means and accounts still the barbaric savages that we once were. We just have it cleverly disguised under this thin exterior of civilization. Ergo, we are all barbaric pricks in essence.

No matter what sounds super cool and badass and cynical and hardcore in forum posts and comics captions, not everybody would kill, rape or steal "if they could get away with it". And, likewise, not everybody would decide to trigger massively murderous conquest wars if given the opportunity. It takes a certain mindset, mentality and set of values, that are not universally shared.

1. A lot of people pretend not to be power hungry but once they get a taste of power....watch and see. :)

2. Ok, according to the English dictionary civilized = humane and war is not humane so...I guess you were right when you said Napoleon was uncivilized. So Napoleon was a glorious hero but not a glorious civilized hero. But sometimes, being uncivilized is your only option...

A war conqueror is a piece of shit, neither "glorious" nor "heroic" (conquests and provoked wars never are). He can be a national glory for nationalist dickheads who have been indocrinated since childhood to rever these locally mythified figures, but once they reach the age to study history and comprehend its practical implications, or when they belong to other countries, they have no excuse.

Generally, one side's mythical barbaric figure is rightly considered as a massively murderous freak by the other side (see Napoleon percieved by the french and by the english), and this alone should lead to question their mythological aura. I am not sure you get what we're talking about. We are talking about massive battlefield (and, generally, civil aswell) slaughters throughout continents in order to indulge the imperialistic ambition of one megalomaniac and his gang. There is absolutely no way, no angle, to consider this as a "good guy's" doing. Put bluntly : the leaders of military conquests are always "the baddies". By definition. They are the criminals who should ideally be neutralized before they get too much power, and replaced by somewhat decent people - that is, people (they are numerous, as the maniacs are thankfully the exception) who would not trigger continent-wide wars and massacres for some geopolitical or symbolic profit.

Heroising history's biggest mass murderers is just plain wrong.

Well, that's because some people are better programmed than the rest to act like civilized robots. However push a man too far (any man) and you will see the animal surge within him.

But that is what we are. We are cultural products. We are driven by the values we internalize. We are individually different because we all internalise multiple contradictory values at different levels, but what we feel is how things clash (or conform) with these values. They determine our reactions, emotions, goals - and even the way we channel or repress animalistic urges (through our intellect).

In some cultural (or subcultural) context, we can be trained to consider that the systematic murder of some labelled enemy is okay. In some other context, we can be trained to consider that it isn't. We can be trained to value empathy, to value mutual responsability, and that is what we become - what becomes our measure of "okay". This can be learnt and unlearnt, but nothing is "natural" or is "ourselves" as opposed to "not really the real selves". We simply are this. And it differenciates us.

And this is why individuals react differently in a same situation. This is why you have a wide spectrum of reactions, in a given historical setting. That's because we all internalize different sets of values, with different weights for each of these values. And the deeper they are internalized, the harder it gets to overcome these values (whether right or wrong).

Reductionism fails at a descriptive and predictive levels.

After reading your post, I googled Hawley Crippen. Fascinating read. There've been games developed re JtP, but Crippen would also make a good game.

I don't dispute the fact that human beings are culturally and socially conditioned. However this programming only serves as being the tools that merit compliance. It feeds the delusion that we serve a greater purpose. You see human beings have a tendency to seek constant validation because it is integral to their sense of importance. The nature of virtues and morals is apocryphal at best and any verdict delivered on the basis of such is fallacious and biased.

Truth be told, human beings kill by virtue of their very existence since the nature of human wants has led to the interminable extinction of various species. In that sense we are no different than that of the scourge.

It is our emotions that make us susceptible to manipulation by the powers that be. It is what con-artists, magicians and governments exploit with great flourish. We are constantly fed propaganda and lies by the media,religion and even those whom we consider as being our peers.

I think he put it best, "Ladies and Gentlemen! You've read about it in the papers! Now witness, before your very eyes, that most rare and tragic of nature's mistakes! I give you: the average man. Physically unremarkable, it instead possesses a deformed set of values. Notice the hideously bloated sense of humanity's importance. Also note the club-footed social conscience and the withered optimism. It's certainly not for the squeamish, is it? Most repulsive of all, are its frail and useless notions of order and sanity. If too much weight is placed upon them... they snap. How does it live, I hear you ask? How does this poor pathetic specimen survive in today's harsh and irrational environment? I'm afraid the sad answer is, "Not very well." Faced with the inescapable fact that human existence is mad, random, and pointless, one in eight of them crack up and go stark slavering buggo! Who can blame them? In a world as psychotic as this... any other response would be crazy!". - The Joker

You see, the beast is still lurking within us and when we are pressed for survival then human beings would dump these foolish and apocryphal morals with nary a though: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2217141/I-eat-piece-friend-survive-Torment-1972-Andes-plane-crash-survivor-haunted-ordeal-40-years-later.html

One does not have to be trained to kill, this is something that is hard wired into the human persona and those who refuse to do so would be pressed for survival and consequentially perish.

Well I won't argue with comic book logic.

Why do you call, logic, "comic book logic"? And don't you think Lionel212008 is in a better position to see humanity than someone living in Switzerland?

It's not logic, it's a fantasy and interpretation selected for the pleasure of sounding (and feeling) dramatic.

And the geographical comment is vaguely retarded. I don't think I have to explain how.

When it comes to bubbles, I do have (by anthropological formation, transnational identity and humanitarian activity) a bit of a richer background and deeper knowledge on a variety human situations than people who refer to fictional psychos as philosophical sources, yes, and I don't think that the passport has much to do with this. But you're entitled to your assumptions.