Julius Ceasar, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan and many more…

These people had beliefs and worldviews that were so horribly, by today’s standards, that calling them fascist would be huge understatement. And they followed through by committing a lot of evil.

Aren’t we basically glorifying the Hitlers of centuries past?

I know, historians always say that one should not judge historical figures by contemporary moral standards. But there’s a difference between objectively studying history and actually glorifying these figures.

  • lolcatnip@reddthat.comEnglish
    82·
    3 months ago

    We literally call Alexander “the Great”, and Caesar’s name was adopted as a title more than once by powerful rulers (e.g. Kaiser and Czar). Sounds like glorification to me.

    • wewbull@feddit.ukEnglish
      5·
      3 months ago

      …because that’s his name. It was how people referred to him. It’s not like people are going “He’s Grrrreat!” like Tony the Tiger.

      Is this just a case of “great” having changed meaning subtly? Now it’s a superlative more than anything else, but in this usage I feel it meaning is much more about scale of what they did. Not a judgment on the morality of what they did.

      • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        1·
        3 months ago

        It wasn’t for him, but for those who were named after him it was used to symbolise that they - like Caesar - were one of “the greats”