Men of old

[PangQuan]

So i have been reading the records of the grand historian.

at the end of Xiang Yu's power, to prove that his defeat would be the will of heaven and not any fault due to his military skill, he said that he would take a generals head and take out the banner.

his force of a believe 28 horsemen were meeting a force of hundreds.

in the end Xiang Yu had done what he had said, as well as killing 50 to 100 men in his fury to take the commanding generals head. He ended up cutting his own throat as not to be taken in battle and to prove a point. In his quest for the power of china spanning several years, he had seen and won over 70 battles. never knowing defeat until his end when the king of han out smarted him.


This type of tale is not un common, not in chinese, japanese, europian, middle eastern, etc.

What is said of men today?

What men today can claim the same manhood that these men of old had earned through countless battles and hardships. being born to the frozen lands of the north, fighting for honor and water in the endless dunes to the south. Battling among the chariots and soldiers in the plains...

are even our strongest and best men still just shadows next to what mankind used to produce?

has a few thousand years and civilization deluted us so?

[SPJ]

Xiang Yu or the king of Zhu.

He defeated most of the army of Qin --

He was surrounded by ambush from 10 fronts near the river of Wu.

--

[David Jamieson]

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that even that story is painted favourably to hide the true marks of it's reality. :)

people do outstanding things everyday that will amount to more than how many one has killed.

Better to point at how many has one saved?

True heroes, Like Bethune, Jarvik or Banting and the like. Saved millions by working hard to find cures for disease and all too commonplace maladies.

Old generals with killing records are for the most part useless to us all and thankfully, for the most part they are forgotten.

Soldiers who fight for peace is another matter. Soldiers who fight for control or conquest are misguided by the greed of those who lead them and will regret the labours they undertake because the only fruit they will bear is more strife.

[SPJ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTVgkxXBfaQ

a piece of music about Zhu Ba Wang at the very end played with Pipa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAEakqIc1NM

[PangQuan]

rather than focus on the moralisitc ideals and doings, im more interested in the physical abilities of men of old compared to men today.

more so on the amount of us today that could hold a flame to many of the pasts great fighting men.

i would like to bet that most of the old generals who had seen scores of battles and had actually killed hundreds of men in battle would make quick work of most of todays martial artists.

i understand morals and the value placed on deeds for so and such.

not really the prying behind my original post though.

xiang yu would not really be called a morally favorable person lol

[PangQuan]

so, philosophy aside.

sure we can say, well those guys are just fables and tales.....


there have been many men that have died up to todays time...SOME of these men ACTUALLY WERE great warriors in thier own rights.

by skill alone.

i refer to these men and question our grounds to stand next to them in the moment of heated combat.

how would we compare to some of the pasts greatest ACTUAL figthers.

[cjurakpt]

"The men of old breathed clear down to their heels."
- Chuang Tzu

[PangQuan]

"The men of old breathed clear down to their heels."
- Chuang Tzu

this is more along the lines i am talking about.

it is also said by confucius that the ancients (to him, which would date 2000BC or so) lived in the tree tops in the summer, caves by winter, and would eat the flesh of beasts raw.

this would show that according to his studies men were in quite a primal state just 2000 years prior to confucius' time.

at what point could we link the blood of 'civilized' warriors to the blood of primal survivalists.

how would this affect the body?

[PangQuan]

p.s. i may be the only one interested in this lol

[SPJ]

there is the classic play in Peking opera,

farewell my concubine. very and very sad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9PxDPt0aWk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMpusFE5qfs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-aqLeK06uw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkfug4MxoyA

[KC Elbows]

One of the problems inherent in court histories was that those reporting directly on the events were often very far away from the court, and had a vested interest in misreporting their numbers and the enemies numbers. There's even cases of defeats being called victories in the court histories, because those who suffered those defeats were far enough from the court to have a good chance that the real news would never reach it.

Additionally, generals in the Chinese military were not often the type to take the front lines, it is spoken ill of in a number of classical works for a leader to take up the sword. It happened, sure, but the histories are just as likely to look on such an action as foolish and a sign that that person has no mandate to lead.

Even battles as late as 900 A.D. in China are still rife with innaccuracies like this. When the wrong answer meant execution, one tended to give accounts that would make the Emporer happy. Additionally, since the historians often represented Confucian circles, and the generals in the field not only were not always such idealogues, but could suddenly be commanded by government officials with no military know how, it is hard to guage how much faith to put into specific entries, given that they probably cover for officials who derailed measures of military defense with their interference, and the accounts given would not be likely to give due credit to the experienced commanders, who are, after all, one of the least admired groups to the Confucians.

Actually, the archetype of Chinese culture who I find the most interesting is the scholar choosing to speak against the Emporer despite the punishment that would follow. And such accounts are more historically reliable than battle accounts in the Chinese context, since the punishment tends to be in the imperial records, and, when those punished still rise to prominence, their rise is generally noted in the official records if not in the specific Academy that person might patronize, etc.

Read a book a while back, medeival chinese warfare, it made for an interesting read. I'll try to remember the author's name. Professional soldiers are tough, no matter where they come from, and, while the nature of imperial records of battles are not very reliable during that era, the book manages to convey what were the strong points and weaknesses that drove the development of the Chinese military during that time.

One of the other problems with histories is that the previous dynasty's history was written to justify the current dynasty's rule: as such, only that which is in line with that conclusion was safe to include.

[SevenStar]

So i have been reading the records of the grand historian.

at the end of Xiang Yu's power, to prove that his defeat would be the will of heaven and not any fault due to his military skill, he said that he would take a generals head and take out the banner.

his force of a believe 28 horsemen were meeting a force of hundreds.

in the end Xiang Yu had done what he had said, as well as killing 50 to 100 men in his fury to take the commanding generals head. He ended up cutting his own throat as not to be taken in battle and to prove a point. In his quest for the power of china spanning several years, he had seen and won over 70 battles. never knowing defeat until his end when the king of han out smarted him.


This type of tale is not un common, not in chinese, japanese, europian, middle eastern, etc.

What is said of men today?

What men today can claim the same manhood that these men of old had earned through countless battles and hardships. being born to the frozen lands of the north, fighting for honor and water in the endless dunes to the south. Battling among the chariots and soldiers in the plains...

are even our strongest and best men still just shadows next to what mankind used to produce?

has a few thousand years and civilization deluted us so?

this is what I am always talking about - we tend to over romanticize things in terms of the warriors of yesterday. my dad served in the military for 20 years. he worked in a hospital during vietnam and served many years as a jet mechanic. he was on a nuclear carrier fixing damaged jets in the middle of the ocean during the gulf war.

I have stopped men from beating on women, been shot at, stopped a robbery in progress, fell two stories down an elevator shaft, been in brawls involving more than 15 people, competed full contact, fought 3 on 1 and ko'ed them two of them.

look at pro boxers, thai boxers, mma guys, soldiers in iraq, etc. why would anyone think the men of days gone were better men than those of today?

[SevenStar]

so, philosophy aside.

sure we can say, well those guys are just fables and tales.....


there have been many men that have died up to todays time...SOME of these men ACTUALLY WERE great warriors in thier own rights.

by skill alone.

i refer to these men and question our grounds to stand next to them in the moment of heated combat.

how would we compare to some of the pasts greatest ACTUAL figthers.

you're kinda comparing apples to oranges here. compare the battle tested soldiers to our battle tested soldiers, not to civilians. compare their fighters to our fighters, not to our casual hobbyists.

[PangQuan]

im more trying to delve further back when men endured hardships generally 24/7

im not romanticising, the accounts i have given actually are from the records of the grand historian and other documents. i didnt make any accounts up. im just looking at the connections.

prehuman societies im sure had tougher breeds than we have now. what about the connection between that.

the Celts were tough as hell

those guys went into battle NUDE. have you done that? with a claymore?

show me a guy like that

no electricity, running water, grocery stores.

snow, bare limbs, hunting.

we didnt just grow into the 21stcentury and fat lazy slobs on the backs of weaklings did we?

[PangQuan]

dont get me wrong.

we have some tough SOB's nowdays.

but im also speaking ratio. as mentioned before by myself.

how many men who claim to be tough would break down and cry at the mention of mommy?

how many of our modern tough guys could handle what tough guys went through 5000 years ago?

guys before high civilization i can assure you were tough

they were the ones that did LIVE by survival of the fittest.

ratio wise in a tribe 5000 years ago. you think modern tribe of 40 guys could best a tribe of 40 guys from that time period in un armed battle/hunting/survival etc.?

IMO doubtful

but im just curious. tired of the Fetus style threads and such....thought i would try and spark some debate about man flesh lol

[PangQuan]

flame me some, gotta go train be back to see later

dont dissapoint me :mad: :p

[ittokaos]

Good Afternoon,


Well, yeah. We are whiny little weaklings in comparrison. The majority of the reason is the fact that while everyone who was this great warrior got some form of payment for it. It was his job to destroy and be the greatest he could be or else he would die.

Our soldiers are weaker than theirs due to the fact that the weapon technology has gotten lazier. No more running for days with a heavy spear and sheild. Compare the 30+ year training it would take to be a great archer as opposed to the 1-2 yr training to be a sharpshooter. Don't get me wrong, sharpshooters probably train really hard to be as good as they are but not as hard as someone who fights (and was expected to win!) a war with a piece of wood with a string on one end shooting other pieces of wood.

It's just a trade off. Better weapons, weaker people.

I hope this helps


WF

[Yum Cha]

What? you don't go hunting in the snow nude with a blunt stick? Never killed a dozen enemies with your bare hands? Sheeit, I bet you never even jumped a tall building with a single bound.

Don't throw your issues with manhood on the rest of us, you *****. Harden up and quit whining.

[SevenStar]

im more trying to delve further back when men endured hardships generally 24/7

im not romanticising, the accounts i have given actually are from the records of the grand historian and other documents. i didnt make any accounts up. im just looking at the connections.

prehuman societies im sure had tougher breeds than we have now. what about the connection between that.

the Celts were tough as hell

those guys went into battle NUDE. have you done that? with a claymore?

show me a guy like that

no electricity, running water, grocery stores.

snow, bare limbs, hunting.

we didnt just grow into the 21stcentury and fat lazy slobs on the backs of weaklings did we?

I am not saying you made the accounts up, but is placing them on such a high pedestal not also romanticizing?

the nude thing was for shock factor, I would guess. if a naked man comes upto you, what would your first thought be?

as for daily life, yeah of course we in general are softer. we can play video games and toss our food in the microwave. I actually have a theory about that, which I have been "testing" - I work out regularly, don't wear coats during the winter and don't use the a/c much. I take showers with the hot water full blast and turnthe cold all the way up and the hot water off before I get out. coincidentally, I haven't been sick in at all in almost 10 years.

[SanHeChuan]

I work out regularly, don't wear coats during the winter and don't use the a/c much. I take showers with the hot water full blast and turnthe cold all the way up and the hot water off before I get out. coincidentally, I haven't been sick in at all in almost 10 years.

I'm the same, but I wouldn't have made the connection. I didn't really get sick much as a kid either, when I watched TV all day. :confused:

I've never dressed weather appropriately, much to the chagrin of my mother.

I like my showers burning hot, but never cold.

It's been 85 to 95 in my apartment for weeks. When it got to the mid 90's I was like, I should probably turn on the A/C, but it only made it a few degrees hotter. I can't feel enough of a difference to know if the A/C is broke or the thermostat. :eek:

I've also been injected with smallpox, and anthrax, so I think I got you beat in the biowarfare department. :p

[Fuzzly]

Men of yesteryear might have been (generally, our top athletes are probably the best there has ever been, with our advances in training and diet) stronger, but there's a problem in thinking physical ability=manhood.

Man's greatest strength it not his body. How many animals are stronger? Faster? Can fly or breathe underwater? With his body alone, man can not do any of these things, but with his mind, he can become stronger, faster, and go where no other animal has gone.

[Toby]

if a naked man comes upto you, what would your first thought be?"Uh, oh, he's mistaken me for 7*. I'd better tell him I'm not into dudes."

;)

[golden arhat]

rather than focus on the moralisitc ideals and doings, im more interested in the physical abilities of men of old compared to men today.

more so on the amount of us today that could hold a flame to many of the pasts great fighting men.

i would like to bet that most of the old generals who had seen scores of battles and had actually killed hundreds of men in battle would make quick work of most of todays martial artists.

i understand morals and the value placed on deeds for so and such.

not really the prying behind my original post though.

xiang yu would not really be called a morally favorable person lol


sure they would make short work of most

WITH A SWORD OR AN AXE lol

u have t remember also that they are generals and as much as various styles like to brag about this and that being taught to the army

u have to remember that martial arts really do nothing in battle

at the time battle was about hordes of unskilled men with weapons being driven at other groups of men by skilled (or unskilled) generals

anybody can swing an axe right

yes there were skilled archers swordsmen cavaliers etc but the majority of the fighting was done by peasant conscripts

also remember the virginia tech massacre
or the kennedy assasination

should they be praised for their firearms skills ??

[SevenStar]

"Uh, oh, he's mistaken me for 7*. I'd better tell him I'm not into dudes."

;)

whatever, big boy ;)

[PangQuan]

What? you don't go hunting in the snow nude with a blunt stick? Never killed a dozen enemies with your bare hands? Sheeit, I bet you never even jumped a tall building with a single bound.

Don't throw your issues with manhood on the rest of us, you *****. Harden up and quit whining.

lol, ill get right on that.

[PangQuan]

you pretty much hit the nail on the head with what i was trying to get at 7

im not talking about skill here arhat, just plain old toughness of the mans body. i know we are far more skilled than our ancient forfathers. we have better accumulation of knowledge. however knowledge doesnt put you through constant life hardships that the old tribes actually had to live through.

I was corrected by a person, the celts did not go into battle nude, it was the norse.

being able to take more damage, live in tougher climates, work longer, harder, and with less rest.

now im not whining or complaining lol. i would like to consider myself pretty tough. im not huge, but i know my pain thresh hold is quite high, and similarly to you 7, i do much of that myself.

i live in the northwest and for the most part only wear a hooded sweatshirt in the winter. I ride my bike in the cold all the time and do what i can to keep fit.

but with your point about the microwave, video games, TV, the movies, CARS. so much easier to ride in a car than pilot a horse in the rain/snow/hail.

how many of us could hold a flame to a troupe of 10 -15 vikings on a dragon ship in the sleet and snow living life according to constant battle and plundering.

those guys didnt just fight weaklings either, they fought eachother as well. the strongest warrior always being the leader and captain. by right of battle. troupes of men who were ALL hard @sses.

men of old DID do some crazy shiat, some hard core stuff. things you just dont and cannot see men do today.

its just this type of factual stuff im talking about. not any romantacizing about old generals (i had to get this ball rolling somehow :p ) but more along the lines of the stuff that did happen, the men that were crazy tough.

how much of that is left in us? if we put a child to be raised in this fashion, would he reach the same limits of endurance and fortitude? would he surpass them? Are we better, just lazier?

this is my main pondering here. were we in the same circumstances would we match up, fall short, or severly outshadow our forfathers of ancient barbarism?

[xcakid]

What is said of men today?

What men today can claim the same manhood that these men of old had earned through countless battles and hardships. being born to the frozen lands of the north, fighting for honor and water in the endless dunes to the south. Battling among the chariots and soldiers in the plains...

are even our strongest and best men still just shadows next to what mankind used to produce?

has a few thousand years and civilization deluted us so?

Hey you ever try picking up hotties at a bar when you look like troll. Talk about uphill battle, hardship, and emotional highs and lows. The cunning you have to use to get them home. The various manuevering. Oh yes, we face death: Ever heard of AIDS.

Todays battle field is the dating scene of a single guy who is not good looking and broke.

Whomever got game is todays generals.


I am proud to say I am a warrior in the dating scene. I hope to get promoted to corporal pretty soon Sux being a private. All I get are fat chicks. I've had enough spoils of war. I want prime rib dangit. :D

[PangQuan]

Hey you ever try picking up hotties at a bar when you look like troll. Talk about uphill battle, hardship, and emotional highs and lows. The cunning you have to use to get them home. The various manuevering. Oh yes, we face death: Ever heard of AIDS.

Todays battle field is the dating scene of a single guy who is not good looking and broke.

Whomever got game is todays generals.


I am proud to say I am a warrior in the dating scene. I hope to get promoted to corporal pretty soon Sux being a private. All I get are fat chicks. I've had enough spoils of war. I want prime rib dangit. :D

ROFLMAO!!!

thanks for starting my day with a good laugh man. :D

[BruceSteveRoy]

so sorry if i repeat somone elses thoughts on this matter.

but wasn't the reason these 'great' men did all that killing and warring to attempt to stabalize society so that in the future people would not have to live like that?

[BruceSteveRoy]

Hey you ever try picking up hotties at a bar when you look like troll. Talk about uphill battle, hardship, and emotional highs and lows. The cunning you have to use to get them home. The various manuevering. Oh yes, we face death: Ever heard of AIDS.

Todays battle field is the dating scene of a single guy who is not good looking and broke.

Whomever got game is todays generals.


I am proud to say I am a warrior in the dating scene. I hope to get promoted to corporal pretty soon Sux being a private. All I get are fat chicks. I've had enough spoils of war. I want prime rib dangit. :D

Brilliant!

[PangQuan]

so sorry if i repeat somone elses thoughts on this matter.

but wasn't the reason these 'great' men did all that killing and warring to attempt to stabalize society so that in the future people would not have to live like that?

exactly right.

even excluding great men. even your standard survivalist, every man that had to endure the required living arangements of the times.

of course once we became solid agriculturists, much of our hunters/gatherers/warriors became farmers. granted farm life is a tough one, it still doesnt compare to the open field.

and then what about tribal societies that would require a heafty right of passage to become a man.

knowing that only the fittest and strongest would breed, did not these rights of passage often weed out the weak and frail so that only the mighty would live?

what society does this now days? dont we let our weak procreate and thrive in todays society? especially in america. what does that do to thier children? does it make them have the same weak gene's? does it further the strong?

of course men of old did what they had to so we dont have to live like that anymore.

thus making it easy for us to be weaker and not HAVE to be strong like that. giving us the opportunity to further birth defects, and hereditary disease. saving the sick, having them breed and create more. billions of us...some strong, many weak.

i think the ratio of weak to strong has changed drastically from perhaps 4 thousand years ago. hell even 2000 or 1000 years ago, perhaps even 500 years ago.

[BruceSteveRoy]

you should rethink your definition of weak and strong to fit a more modern model.

i think society still weeds out the weak. just look at social darwinism. you can actually place people on a sociemtric scale to determine their social acceptability in a given culture. there are certain people that are known as sociometric stars and tend to be pretty universally liked and there are people that are refered to sociometric rejects that are pretty universally disliked (even by other sociometric rejects). and the majority land somewhere in between. there are a lot of contributing factors to where a person winds up on the scale but one thing that tends to happen is that people who date, marry, breed, and all that with another person tend to be around the same place on this scale as their mate. thus their shared perspective of the world tends to raise a child in an environment that makes him/her around the same lplace on that scale as the parents. now what does this have to do with anyything?

studies show that the further up the scale you are the more successful you tend to be. that is not to say rejescts can not succeed. it is just much more of a struggle for them. so bc society has changed from a kill or be killed tribal mentaility the weeding out happens on a social level.

so people who find it easier to interact with groups and fit in to a society are the ones that are able to get ahead in their school, in their jobs, in the relationships, etc. the ease of which is facilitated further by the fact that they don't have to struggle with issues of social belonging. which is one of the basic needs in maslows hierarchy.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Two words:

Gun Powder.

The great equalizer.

It has changed the world in more ways than we care to admit.

[PangQuan]

you should rethink your definition of weak and strong to fit a more modern model.

i think society still weeds out the weak. just look at social darwinism. you can actually place people on a sociemtric scale to determine their social acceptability in a given culture. there are certain people that are known as sociometric stars and tend to be pretty universally liked and there are people that are refered to sociometric rejects that are pretty universally disliked (even by other sociometric rejects). and the majority land somewhere in between. there are a lot of contributing factors to where a person winds up on the scale but one thing that tends to happen is that people who date, marry, breed, and all that with another person tend to be around the same place on this scale as their mate. thus their shared perspective of the world tends to raise a child in an environment that makes him/her around the same lplace on that scale as the parents. now what does this have to do with anyything?

studies show that the further up the scale you are the more successful you tend to be. that is not to say rejescts can not succeed. it is just much more of a struggle for them. so bc society has changed from a kill or be killed tribal mentaility the weeding out happens on a social level.

so people who find it easier to interact with groups and fit in to a society are the ones that are able to get ahead in their school, in their jobs, in the relationships, etc. the ease of which is facilitated further by the fact that they don't have to struggle with issues of social belonging. which is one of the basic needs in maslows hierarchy.


nice point.

so basically your saying we at some point, (as sanjuro points out) there became a chane in what we might consider "strong" and "weak"

speaking solely from a physical standpoint of fortitude/strength/endurance, i think not much has really changed as to who is strong and who is weak.

however, as a society our goals will determine what is strong and weak as you suggest.

so from this stand point, the physical aspects become highly reduced in a requirement of being "strong" or "weak"

interesting perspective

[Pork Chop]

I was corrected by a person, the celts did not go into battle nude, it was the norse.


It was the Picts (forebears to the Celts) that painted themselves blue and fought nekked. The only Norse that fought without armor were the Berserkers, who donned bear (and other animal) hides.
Many Greeks are also depicted as fighting nude, or near nude with only a helmet.



I am proud to say I am a warrior in the dating scene. I hope to get promoted to corporal pretty soon Sux being a private. All I get are fat chicks. I've had enough spoils of war. I want prime rib dangit. :D

Why am I not surprised that you live in Texas?
What is it about women here?

[PangQuan]

k. gotcha.

it was the celts that destroyed the picts then.

kinda get that mixed up sometimes. thanks :)

[Pork Chop]

by the way, you were right in the first place
celts like to get down and dirty nekked too:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/celts/factfile/warriors.shtml

Picts were more likely absorbed by the Celts than destroyed by them.
http://www.hyw.com/Books/History/Celts__B.htm

[sanjuro_ronin]

One can argue that we live in a society that caters to the "wimps".
Sure there are lots of "sport combat" shows, aka the "poor man's gladiator show".
But as we have seen in some videos, like that 90year old being beaten in front of those 5 people and no one did anything, people tend to be wimps.
The vast majority that watch sport combat are only brave when enibriated.
Even those that participate in combat sports, outside the elite level, could hardly be called "warriors" or "fighters".
They lack Intent.

Though this is nothing new, Homer mentions such about some pankrationists in his writings, how warfare and sport are very different.

The person who is social apt in these times would not be so in the times past, warrior tend to "talk less and do more" leaving the social skills to the "politicians".
Until, of course, it became time for them to be politicians.

Firearms, the industrial revolution, technology and the nuclear age changed the face of "man" and survival of the "fittest" forever.

[PangQuan]

i thought i had read that about the celts...oh well.

makes total sense about the picts. at least through the women at least. kill the men breed with the women i guess was always the way to go...

those are some nice links BTW, thanks :D

[PangQuan]

One can argue that we live in a society that caters to the "wimps".
Sure there are lots of "sport combat" shows, aka the "poor man's gladiator show".
But as we have seen in some videos, like that 90year old being beaten in front of those 5 people and no one did anything, people tend to be wimps.
The vast majority that watch sport combat are only brave when enibriated.
Even those that participate in combat sports, outside the elite level, could hardly be called "warriors" or "fighters".
They lack Intent.

Though this is nothing new, Homer mentions such about some pankrationists in his writings, how warfare and sport are very different.

The person who is social apt in these times would not be so in the times past, warrior tend to "talk less and do more" leaving the social skills to the "politicians".
Until, of course, it became time for them to be politicians.

Firearms, the industrial revolution, technology and the nuclear age changed the face of "man" and survival of the "fittest" forever.

very valid points.

so i guess the "fittest" would depend wholey on the times and the requirements to be "successful" according to the time you live in.

so in a sense donald trump is one tough SOB!!!:eek:

[sanjuro_ronin]

very valid points.

so i guess the "fittest" would depend wholey on the times and the requirements to be "successful" according to the time you live in.

so in a sense donald trump is one tough SOB!!!:eek:

Well, there are two types of power, that which is given, like Trumps and that which is taken, like Alexander's or Caeser's.

[PangQuan]

you know, PC, now that you think about it.

the absorbtion of the Picts, as well as other Liguran's, could you think this might be why some people in a family line will differ so much from the rest of thier kin?

repressed or long lost genes resurfacing to take dominance?

[PangQuan]

Well, there are two types of power, that which is given, like Trumps and that which is taken, like Alexander's or Caeser's.

well, wouldnt trumps be earned? didnt he build his fortune? i may be totally wrong here though.

[sanjuro_ronin]

well, wouldnt trumps be earned? didnt he build his fortune? i may be totally wrong here though.


I didn't say anything about earned.

[BruceSteveRoy]

there are actually several types of power

Legitimate Power
Legitimate Power refers to power of an individual because of the relative position and duties of the holder of the position within an organization. Legitimate Power is formal authority delegated to the holder of the position.

Referent Power
Referent Power means the power or ability of individuals to persuade and influence others. It's based on the charisma and interpersonal skills of the power holder. Here the person under power desires to identify with these personal qualities, and gains satisfaction from being an accepted follower.

Expert Power
Expert Power is an individual's power deriving from the skills or expertise of the person and the organization's needs for those skills and expertise. Unlike the others, this type of power is usually highly specific and limited to the particular area in which the expert is trained and qualified.

Reward Power
Reward Power depends upon the ability of the power wielder to confer valued material rewards, it refers to the degree to which the individual can give others a reward of some kind such as benefits, time off, desired gifts, promotions or increases in pay or responsibility.

Coercive Power
Coercive Power means the application of negative influences onto employees. It might refer to the ability to demote or to withhold other rewards. It's the desire for valued rewards or the fear of having them withheld that ensures the obedience of those under power. Coercive Power tends to be the least effective form of power as it builds resentment and resistance within the targets of Coercive Power.

[sanjuro_ronin]

there are actually several types of power

Legitimate Power
Legitimate Power refers to power of an individual because of the relative position and duties of the holder of the position within an organization. Legitimate Power is formal authority delegated to the holder of the position.

Referent Power
Referent Power means the power or ability of individuals to persuade and influence others. It's based on the charisma and interpersonal skills of the power holder. Here the person under power desires to identify with these personal qualities, and gains satisfaction from being an accepted follower.

Expert Power
Expert Power is an individual's power deriving from the skills or expertise of the person and the organization's needs for those skills and expertise. Unlike the others, this type of power is usually highly specific and limited to the particular area in which the expert is trained and qualified.

Reward Power
Reward Power depends upon the ability of the power wielder to confer valued material rewards, it refers to the degree to which the individual can give others a reward of some kind such as benefits, time off, desired gifts, promotions or increases in pay or responsibility.

Coercive Power
Coercive Power means the application of negative influences onto employees. It might refer to the ability to demote or to withhold other rewards. It's the desire for valued rewards or the fear of having them withheld that ensures the obedience of those under power. Coercive Power tends to be the least effective form of power as it builds resentment and resistance within the targets of Coercive Power.

and which of those are given and which are taken?

[Sang Feng Fan]

well, wouldnt trumps be earned? didnt he build his fortune? i may be totally wrong here though.

Trump got his start by talking his father into giving him a several million dollar loan he had already promised to his older brother.

[PangQuan]

Trump got his start by talking his father into giving him a several million dollar loan he had already promised to his older brother.

ok....sounds like a hand me out to me.

[Fuzzly]

Greeks would be depicted nude or near-nude because they loved the human body. In fact, almost all Greek warriors (I say almost, as I have not studied all Greeks) were heavily armored. But even their chest-armor was made to resemble a human chest.

So, if you are a huge fan of the human body, why depict them in armor?