Who is yours and who you believe is one?

Not great only because they did good or evil but how they became who they are through good efforts, manipulation.

Great as in who they became frrom who they were.

My first one is

Julius ceaser (http://heraklia.fws1.com/)

When could they say, till now, that talk'd of Rome, that her wide walks encompass'd but one man?

Julius Caesar, I, ii, William Shakespeare

Marcus Brutus



This was the noblest Roman of them all:
All the conspirators save only he
Did that they did in envy of great Caesar;
He only, in a general honest thought
And common good to all, made one of them.
His life was gentle, and the elements
So mix'd in him that Nature might stand up
And say to all the world 'This was a man!'

- Mark Antony's remark after the death of his arch-enemy Marcus Brutus
( Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare )

i´d like to mention Otto von Bismarck , a great statesman

Who? Don't ask me...... I just read a book entitled "The Most Evil Men and Women in History" which told me about things regarding some blod-thirsty rulers...... they all fit to this thread.

Abraham Lincoln is the only good and virtuous man with any intelligence that has ever in the history of the human race ever ever ever held any kind of power to his name. Constantine was a dictator, and like slaveholders (since a dictator's subjects are essentially his slaves), there is no such thing as a benevolent dictator.

Bismarck knew his shit. I'll give him that. He essentially engineered World War 1, the war that was at least the most meaningless, in modern terms, that I am aware of.

Abraham Lincoln is the only good and virtuous man with any intelligence that has ever in the history of the human race ever ever ever held any kind of power to his name.

Jimmy Carter was a good & virtous man with a very high IQ, unfortunately, he sucked as a president. :m:

Bismarck knew his shit. I'll give him that. He essentially engineered World War 1

How, if he was dead by 1914? What wrought WWI on the world was much more about alliances, and industrialization. Surely Bismarks unification of the German states was ruthless and compotent, but it was only a factor.

To me the most influencial men in history are two:

- Jesus Christ.
- Karl Marx.

I'd say that those who were never known about because they were the ones that guided those in the positions of power to do what they did.

Great animal of history: Old Abe

http://people.msoe.edu/~peterson/suvcw-wi/graphics/old-abe.jpg

Genghis Khan is greatest military strategist in history of mankind. He kicked every country's ass with nothing.

with nothing ??? uhmmm .... what about his hordes ?

Zhuge Liang [Kongming] (http://www.jadedragon.com/archives/history/liang1.html)

Tupac Amaru (hint for the slow: not the rapper!)

Why do people think Lincoln was such a great president. He persided over the greatest tragedy this country has ever seen and only in the darkest hour did he free the slaves. The slaves were freed in such a way that for the next hunderd years they were second class citezens. How many people died and how much economic hardship did our country face because of Lincoln?

My vote for Great leaders are George Washington - the first leader of a military power to voluntarily give up power in over two thousand years. My other vote would be Michial Gorbechev - He released the grip of the Soviet Union all over Eastern Europe and within the Soviet Union itself and allowed and encouraged democracy to be established. He did this by giving his power to the people. They rejected him but that makes the story even better. Unlike most dictators that have been disposed over the last 20 years he did not steel money from the people nor was he ever accused of atrocities when he left office.

He persided over the greatest tragedy this country has ever seen and only in the darkest hour did he free the slaves.

The engineering of the Civil War began long before Abraham Lincoln was even born, possibly when it was decided to allow the South to retain slavery, possibly before then, during the early years of White North America. He did not cause the Civil War by any means whatsoever. It had been a long ambition of his to for every man to be free, but if he were to do so early on in the war he would have alienated the Union states that had not seceded but also had slavery, which was something he could not risk until he was sure that victory was his.

The slaves were freed in such a way that for the next hunderd years they were second class citezens.

Had Lincoln not been assassinated, the Reconstruction would have been significantly different, and more effective. He only survived a few days after the war had ended. The fact that blacks remained second class citizens is largely due to his successors, mostly Johnson, who was a southerner. Although it wasn't supposed to happen, high ranking Confederates regained their positions not only in the government but also in society, when Lincoln had originally expressed a desire to keep the same men who had seceded from regaining even the power to vote.

How many people died and how much economic hardship did our country face because of Lincoln?

I doubt a better man has ever existed that could have handled the Civil War as well as Lincoln did.

As for economic hardship, the North prospered from the war, as usual, and although by the end of the war most of the south had been driven to poverty and starvation, the region had industrialized at an unprecedented rate. There was a definite transformation.

Jimmy Carter was a good & virtous man with a very high IQ, unfortunately, he sucked as a president.

Nah, Carter just experienced a lot of bad luck, that's all. He inherited a piss poor economy from Ford (I think? I'm a little rusty...) and, while he tried to free the Iranian hostages, it was by no means his fault that the operation failed. It was just bad luck.

Just imagine how different the world would be today if Carter had won a second term. No Reagan. No Bush. Possibly no Clinton. Definitely no Bush the second. Practically a utopia.

Surely Bismarks unification of the German states was ruthless and compotent, but it was only a factor.

One of many. The war, and world war two, would never have escalated had Germany remained a weak Confederacy. America wouldn't have become the power that it is today without the two world wars, which almost completely obliterated Europe. Bismarck is one to blame for our hegemony.

- Jesus Christ.
- Karl Marx..

Arggh! It wasn't Christ! It was Constantine!

As for Marx, I'll let you go on that one...

the first leader of a military power to voluntarily give up power in over two thousand years.

Who was the other one? I think George just got tired of being powerful. I believe, but I am not positive, that he was never really interested in being president, but just took the job because everyone else wanted him to.

Bismarck is one to blame for our hegemony.

I think that could be said, but it's not true. What really made the US powerful today is the sharp decline of the British Empire. Yes WWI changed the balance of the world's power balance, but it was destined to happen that the US becomes a hegemonic power. WWI just exacerbated that process by leaps and bounds. I think the most significant thing Bismarck did to alter the power in Europe was 1871 with the invasion of Paris, which was the prelude to WWI if I have ever seen one.

Arggh! It wasn't Christ! It was Constantine!


Maybe to you...not to me, Jesus affects us more then Constantine.

Pollux:

So what did Abe do other than react to the sussesion of the South? I'll admit that the Gettysburg Address was a wonderful speech and he may have been a good person but what did he do? Maybe that he insisted that the war be fought and that the Union be preserved.

Ayn Rand

http://www.ayn-rand.com/ayn-rand-bio.asp

Most recent anyhow.

Khan is greatest military strategist in history of mankind. He kicked every country's ass with nothing.

Yep, except he had the finest light cavalry the world has ever seen.

the first leader of a military power to voluntarily give up power in over two thousand years.

Who was the other one?

Cincinnatus, in the early Roman republic. Appointed dictator to defeat Rome's neighbors, did so, then promptly retired to his farm.

I think George just got tired of being powerful.

George was getting tired of the criticism and attacks from those he had considered friends during the revolution.

Had Lincoln not been assassinated, the Reconstruction would have been significantly different, and more effective.

How so? He had no significant plan in my mind before his assassination, and from some of the things he told to southern governors in the southern states occupied before the end of the war, they wouldn't have to give blacks the vote. His 10% Plan is certainly not indicative of any determination on his part to have made reunion hard for the former secession states.

Bismarck knew his shit. I'll give him that. He essentially engineered World War 1

How, if he was dead by 1914? What wrought WWI on the world was much more about alliances, and industrialization.

And colonization. But it was still Bismarck that had a lot to do with engineering those alliances.

George Washington because he was a sage. He did not seek the power of the presidency but served when asked and was not corrupted by power. Besides by most accounts everybody liked Martha and she picked him.

FireGuy: Too bad so few understand and agree with her.

Why does Ghengis seem to garner more accolades for his accomplishments than Attila?

Why does Ghengis seem to garner more accolades for his accomplishments than Attila?

Attila deserves a lot of accolades. I think the Huns had the finest light cavalry up until the Mongols. The Huns advanced the bow, but the Mongols perfected it with the deep recurve at the tip, and also with the thumb ring, which gave it incredible power but very easy to pull. Plus I have always beeen impressed at just how much territory the Mongols could cover in so little time. Each warrior had 4-5 horses, transferrring between them, and making little slits on the necks of the horses so they could sip the blood for nourishment rather than stopping for food. You just have to admire that shit.

Dinosaur

true. She was a fascinating woman who had a brilliant take on things.

"tupac amaru: not the rapper " huh was there someone else by the name or
do you mean the same person but not by his music...I like his poem book.

Modern Artist: Tupac for political reasons through his media attention,his music and his poems.

Top10 leaders: napolean, alexander, Genghis, Xerxes, Hitler , stalin, Hun, french dude frmo the revolution, ancient chinese dude, ...I'm still trying to think of 2

This thread wasn't about who did good but who was great.

Napolean, Alexander, Genghis all for the landmass that they attained.
If it wasn't for genghis's sons who split up his land our world may be alot different.

Xerxes friend persuaded me but i don't remmeber the reason.

Gotta say hitler and stalin just cause they created such havoc in the world.

Also wayne gretzky just cuz he's wayne gretzky

huh was there someone else by the name or
do you mean the same person but not by his music...I like his poem book.


The last Incan ruler...

Gilles de Rais. The rotten devil rides with Jean d'arc one day and then slices and dices children for his debauched sexual pleasure the next.

Shakelton for his courage.

And Antonin Artaud for having the unsettling mixture of being both bad and good.

'All painters bring their anatomy, their physiology, their saliva, their flesh, their blood, their sperm, their vices, their sexual diseases, their pathology, their prudishness, their health, their character, their personality or their madness into their works.'
- Artaud, Paris 1947

Cincinnatus, in the early Roman republic. Appointed dictator to defeat Rome's neighbors, did so, then promptly retired to his farm.'

Gotcha. That's why Washington was nicknamed Cincinnati?

George was getting tired of the criticism and attacks from those he had considered friends during the revolution.

Then I believe we find ourselves in agreement...

How so? He had no significant plan in my mind before his assassination, and from some of the things he told to southern governors in the southern states occupied before the end of the war, they wouldn't have to give blacks the vote. His 10% Plan is certainly not indicative of any determination on his part to have made reunion hard for the former secession states.

That he didn't have a significant plan may have been due to his dying only days after the war was over, but I see where you're coming from. The man wasn't perfect.

He wouldn't have handed out pardons like Johnson did. The old leaders of the Confederacy would not have returned to power, the benefits of this would have been extraordinary. In my mind at least, I don't care how great some Confederates were--they were still traitors, and at least in the modern world, had they been convicted, they would have been put to death. I'm not sure if this was legal at the time. I can understand letting low-level soldiers go back to their lives with a promise (10% Plan, correct?), but had I been in charge, I would not have given them the right to vote. Johnson nullified so much of what Lincoln did by restoring their rights in spite of their outright treachery to the nation.

Then again, I think we can only speculate. "Malice toward none and charity for all." What I know is that Lincoln wanted the South to be back in the Union, and that he didn't want to punish the South's people for the insurrection. He did not want the South's traditional leaders back in charge. He wanted Blacks to be free, I'm not sure if he wanted them to be equal to whites. When Lincoln died virtually none of this happened--we got the South, we got racist Confederates leading it, Blacks were now legally not slaves but socially inferior. We know what his successors, Johnson and Grant did, but we can only speculate on what Lincoln would have done. Maybe he would have done the same thing. Maybe not.

So what did Abe do other than react to the sussesion of the South? I'll admit that the Gettysburg Address was a wonderful speech and he may have been a good person but what did he do? Maybe that he insisted that the war be fought and that the Union be preserved.

Regardless of his inspirations and regardless of the political environment (the war) he freed the blacks and ended slavery. That's enough for me.

WWI just exacerbated that process by leaps and bounds.

Okay, so we got our hegemony early. If the war hadn't happened, and if the Great Depression did still occur, how do you think our backwater nation would have fared?

and making little slits on the necks of the horses so they could sip the blood for nourishment rather than stopping for food. You just have to admire that shit.

Momee, you know what I learned today...?

Oh, and we could have destroyed the USSR after Japan's defeat because we had the bomb and they didn't. Possibly without spilling any blood, just by making real threats. Like Reconstruction, we can only speculate if this would have been ethically right, but I think anything would have been preferrable to a dictatorship spanning two continents.

That he didn't have a significant plan may have been due to his dying only days after the war was over, but I see where you're coming from. The man wasn't perfect.

He had more than mere days. Lincoln had already started formulating a Reconstruction policy within a few months of Gettysburg. While he didn't have a clear plan formulated, he still had taken initiatives that indicated he favored a very lenient, even conciliatory, policy toward Southerners who would give up the fight. This was made clear in the Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction of December 1863, which included the 10% Plan. And he was able to put this policy into effect in some of the states already occupied by northern troops. Both Arkansas and Louisiana already had fully functioning Unionist governments in 1864. He wanted to establish emancipation, of course, but he more importantly wanted to get these states back into the Union. He noted to the governor of Louisiana that giving the vote to the freed slaves would probably not be necessary. Obviously he was at it well before the end of the war,

He wouldn't have handed out pardons like Johnson did. The old leaders of the Confederacy would not have returned to power, the benefits of this would have been extraordinary.

That's probably true. Interestingly, Johnson had a real hatred towards the wealthy planters, many of whom he would grant pardons to. But he was not only an ardent states' rights activist (remember, he was a states' rights Democrat on a Republican ticket), he seemed to get some sort of personal pleasure from having those men come before him to make personal appeals for pardons (having been born poor and living in East Tennesee, where slavery was at a minimum). It's hard to say how much of what Johnson did was because of his states' rights position, or because of his own characteristics, since he was simply an abrasive personality. At any rate, we just don't know what Lincoln would have done.

Oh, and we could have destroyed the USSR after Japan's defeat because we had the bomb and they didn't.

We didn't exactly have a warehouse full of A-bombs in 1945. There's still some argument as to when a third one could have been ready, if needed, in Japan. I've seen anywhere from one week to six months. At any rate, we could not have 'destroyed' the USSR at that time. And we pretty much did threaten Stalin in so many words. Truman let slip word of the bomb at Potsdam to see what Stalin's reaction would be, and then of course, dropped two the following month.

Okay, so we got our hegemony early. If the war hadn't happened, and if the Great Depression did still occur, how do you think our backwater nation would have fared?

The Great Depression wouldn’t have occurred if WWI didn't happen. The US was not "backward" by the 1920's, she already had the world's largest GDP by 1871, and per capita beat the British in 1903. The United States was becoming a serious concern for the British; they feared American dominance of the seas. The US was an industrial giant, and the British knew that they simply could not keep up with the US much longer. But luckily for the British the Americans weren't very interested in the Atlantic anyways, the US was looking west to the Pacific to stake her claims. The US already had a little empire with the Philippines, and Hawaii, etc in the Pacific. The US would have feared very well in my estimation, and because the Great Depression wouldn't have happened, many nations would be much wealthier today (yes the G.D had that much of an effect). One thing is for sure, the Soviet Union would have been an economic giant by 1945, possibly even rivaling the United States with the sure growth of her industry under Stalin. There would have been a perpetual cold war with btwn Britain and Germany, creating a huge arms race, and economic growth around the world. Decolonization would have probably happened in the 70's and 80's instead of the 50's and 60's. The world today would be very different aindeed; the US wouldn't necessarily be the complete hegemon like it is now. The UN wouldn't exist, and Globalization would have been accomplished by now.

Oh, and we could have destroyed the USSR after Japan's defeat because we had the bomb and they didn't. Possibly without spilling any blood, just by making real threats.

Whoever told you that is a moron sorry...the USSR was posed to invade Japan. If the Americans didn't drop the bomb in August but rather in September, the Soviets would have been on Hokkaido and at Potsdam would have wanted a partition of Tokyo. The United States against 5 million armed men of the Soviet Army? The Soviet Union was so strong at that moment she could have theoretically invaded all of Europe, no big problem. The US rather is lucky that the USSR didn't do her worst. Like Spkye said the US was an infant atomic power, also the US bombers did not have the range to attack any major Soviet city.

Whoever told you that is a moron sorry...

Thanks, nico :rolleyes:

I just think that, had the necessary resources been comitted, the U.S could have ousted the Soviet Union, regardless of its enormous army. Nothing, not even five million soldiers, can keep an atom from splitting.

also the US bombers did not have the range to attack any major Soviet city.

Odd, they seemed to make it to Berlin okay.

with the sure growth of her industry under Stalin.

Much of that Industrial Growth occured in response to Hitler's invasion, to modernize the country. Yes, it was under Stalin, but it may not have happened had World War 1 been averted.

The Great Depression wouldn’t have occurred if WWI didn't happen.

Sources? I'm all ears.

The US was not "backward" by the 1920's, she already had the world's largest GDP by 1871, and per capita beat the British in 1903.

I didn't say backward. I said backwater. Big economy does not equal invincible economy.

He wanted to establish emancipation, of course, but he more importantly wanted to get these states back into the Union. He noted to the governor of Louisiana that giving the vote to the freed slaves would probably not be necessary.

Yes. Anything to get the Union back, slavery or no slavery. I don't know if we could really say for sure if he would really keep Blacks from voting, it's possible that he was just trying to placate the Lousiana governor.

he seemed to get some sort of personal pleasure from having those men come before him to make personal appeals for pardons

I thought that most of the pardons were done through the mail more often than in person?

At any rate, we just don't know what Lincoln would have done.

Yep. Agreed.

At any rate, we could not have 'destroyed' the USSR at that time.

How many irradiated cities does it take to bring a nation to its knees? Actually it's something of an interesting question...pride really gets in the way of caving to foreign demands. It depends on the nation. For Russia, I'm not sure. They were probably feeling pretty patriotic after coming around and kicking Hitler's ass. But then...what if Al Qaeda nuked one of our own cities? Would we keep hunting them down, or would we try to talk peace with them? Almost definitely the former. Howbout two, or three, or four? How many would it take for the mighty United States to surrender to a band of crazy Muslims?

after so many consecutive nuclear attacks on the US by Muslim extremists, I'd have the US just nuke the entire Muslim world out of existance. But I'm not president.

Ayn Rand

http://www.ayn-rand.com/ayn-rand-bio.asp

Most recent anyhow.

I concur. Ayn Rand was great, or rather, her work is great. I add Epicurus to this list as well. And lastly, but not least, I add myself to the list of great men and women of history.

"tupac amaru: not the rapper " huh was there someone else by the name or
do you mean the same person but not by his music...I like his poem book.

Modern Artist: Tupac for political reasons through his media attention,his music and his poems.


No, junior. Tupac Amaru (http://www.jqjacobs.net/andes/tupac_amaru.html). I'm surprised you haven't heard of him. I suppose you haven't heard of Simon Bolivar neither. Tsk tsk.

heard of the 2nd not of tupac amaru sorry. Only a fan of ancient history as taught in high school. Could careless of politics. Am a man of science

I would say that it is impossible to rate anbody as being any more influential than anyone else. Every "great" person has some else that influenced them to act in a certain. So I would say that the greatest person is the first person you can consider a person, i.e., the dude/chic that came immediately after an ape, eventhough its sort of pointless to create definite border between ape and human. blabla

Alright, senior scientist, he's not exactly ancient history and I made it lucid it wasn't the rapper, there's no excuse.

umm ...no excuse for what.
To ask the simple question of who he was?
its like me asking you do you know who j anderson, d. rumelhart, g. hinton, d. touretzky and r. sutton were.
And its no excuse for you not to know

you didn't ask so much as you assumed it to be the rapper when I stated it was "not the rapper". You did ask a question, yes. However, you answered your own question when you assumed me to mean the MC. Get it, got it, great.

I just think that, had the necessary resources been comitted, the U.S could have ousted the Soviet Union, regardless of its enormous army. Nothing, not even five million soldiers, can keep an atom from splitting.

Pollux this is the third time that you have been told this, the US was not a major atomic power, the US would not have been able to attack the USSR with nuclear weapons well into the 1950's with the B-47 bomber, and B-36. The US' B-29's simply did not have the range to attack Moscow, or Leningrad, and surely not anything beyond the Urals. The Soviets would have invaded Western Europe before the US would have had bombs ready. It's not contested really, the USSR was huge, with 5 million men, with thousands of tanks, against a relatively small allied force in France and Germany.

Odd, they seemed to make it to Berlin okay.

I suggest you look at a map of Europe please...

Much of that Industrial Growth occured in response to Hitler's invasion, to modernize the country.

LOL! What? The USSR was industrializing at an enormously fast rate, ever since Stalin took power in 1928 the USSR was developing heavy industry, in 1939 the USSR had a GDP larger then Nazi Germany.

Yes, it was under Stalin, but it may not have happened had World War 1 been averted.

You are right that it wouldn't have happened, the Czars would have probably been in power if WWI didn't happen.

Sources? I'm all ears.


1917-1919: World War I brings large-scale but temporary government intervention in the economy, enacted through federal legislation. The War Industries Board coordinates the production and prices of war materials and the purchase of supplies. In 1918 the railroads are brought under government management; they will return to private control by 1920. The war also spurs growth of the aluminum industry.

1920-1926: A business recession follows the war, but soon a construction boom takes hold, increasingly fueled by stock market speculation. Large corporations take shape, and industries that capture technological change expand rapidly. Automobiles and radios become widespread. But the renewed prosperity does not reach the farms: While the cities boom, agriculture slumps into depression.

1927-1929: The boom of the 1920s and apparent achievement of lasting prosperity puts industrialists on a pedestal, and seems to vindicate Coolidge and Hoover's laissez-faire policies. But the stock market bubble peaks and bursts on October 24, 1929, setting off a financial panic and destroying individual savings and the edifice of credit and debt. Similar crises follow overseas.


The US wouldn't have been spurred by the large debts owed to her by the UK and France, the US became the world's largest creditor, the US became a economic hot spot because of the roaring 20's which was a rebellion to the WWI, and pre-war attitude, wait until you get along in high school...

I didn't say backward. I said backwater. Big economy does not equal invincible economy.

No shit! Obviously not, but it gave the US the distinct advantage over the UK which was the superpower at the time. The US' industrial power was not to be matched past WWI, a big economy that produces arms is an invincible economy.

I don't know if we could really say for sure if he would really keep Blacks from voting, it's possible that he was just trying to placate the Lousiana governor.

Louisiana was under federal control by 1864 and had a Reconstruction governor in place. Lincoln didn't have to placate him. Lincoln could have only tried to give blacks suffrage either through an amendment, which wouldn't come until 1870, or try and force the states to guarantee black suffrage in their new constitutions, but if he was going to get them back into the Union, antaganizing them was risky, and his main goal was to get them back in as painlessly as possible.

I thought that most of the pardons were done through the mail more often than in person?

Yes, they had to write and address him directly.

Lord Alan Brooke.

One cool mofo. Few know he is and what he did.

Alan Brooke was the White Raja in Borneo, right? When he was still a teenager he engaged in tribal warfare and whatnot?

Alan Brooke was the White Raja in Borneo, right? When he was still a teenager he engaged in tribal warfare and whatnot?

Winston Chruchill's military advisor. Had quite a carrer in the armed forces. Directed the Midland Bank I believe after retiring from the millitary.

Ohh, I got the wrong Brooke.

Sir James Brooke was the first White Rajah.

all of ya, i think you're not being realistic enough.
jesus christ? no
i think st paul is greater cos he "promoted" him

Prophet Mohammed is the greatest of all time.
see (http://www.jamaat.net/hart/introtop100.html):cool:

Thou

Shalt

Not

Commiteth

Thread

Necromancy

Thus Sayeth The Prince!!!

Who is yours and who you believe is one?

Not great only because they did good or evil but how they became who they are through good efforts, manipulation.

Great as in who they became frrom who they were.

My first one is

Julius ceaser (http://heraklia.fws1.com/)

ATATURK
great military mind who kicked the ass of England, France, Italy and Greece
founder of a repuclic
and last but not least, advocate of peace

'"peace at home peace in the world"

My vote for Great leaders are George Washington - the first leader of a military power to voluntarily give up power in over two thousand years.


Another was Lucius Cornelius Sulla, appointed dictator of Rome in 82 BC by the senate and reformed the government to give control back to the senate. He reduced the power of the Tribunes and limited the power of the assemblies to pass or veto laws.

After two years he stepped down as dictator (stunning Rome) and stood for consul. After his Consulship, he retired completely from political life. He died after a short illness in 78 BC.

Also not a bad nomination for great men. He was a monster but a great military man who studied under the tutelage of Gaius Marius. He was the first consul to march on Rome (twice) and regretted sparing Julius Caesars life during his dictatorship. He set the precedent that allowed Caesars dictatorship and this eventually proved the undoing for the Roman Republic.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulla)

Thou Shalt Not Commiteth Thread Necromancy Thus Sayeth The Prince!In that case the moderators should follow the rule of closing all threads after they have been dormant for a certain period. Since they don't do that, apparently it is not a rule, much less a commandment.

BTW, "commit" should be in the infinitive form in that sentence, not the second person, since it is the object of the auxiliary verb "shalt": "Thou shalt not commit..." Furthermore, "commiteth" is the archaic third person, not second person. You presumably meant "commitest." Which would still be wrong of course, but it would only be one error instead of two. :)