It seems apparent that you are the one lacking knowledge of history. Cast away the less informed as you please, it only makes your argument weaker.
No, that doesn't even make sense.
It is as nonsensical to say that all subsequent Caesars got their name from Julius as saying they got it from Julius' father.
What are you on about? Of course they derived their names from Julius Caesar. From whom else? Augustus took the name from Julius Caesar, and through the Roman naming convention, the name passed on to the subsequent emperors. It is not nonsensical, but obvious.
Augustus Caesar was the one who created the Empire and became its first Emperor, and thus his name is formally the one being perpetuated throughout the royal lines. Augustus was by far the most revolutionary and important of the two, expanding the Empire enormously. I take it you get your historical knowledge and estimations of the importance of historical figures from Asterix & Obelix.
Augustus was the more revolutionary of the two? I will not delve too far into this as I do not want to soil the accomplishments of Augustus due to an argument with an ignoramus, but to place one above the other in such a way is ridiculous.
Without Julius Caesar, there would have been no Caesar Augustus, first emperor of Rome. Not only did he set the precedent for Roman expansion, but he consolidated power into a sole ruler, becoming
dictator perpetuo, without which there would have been no possibility of installing a permanent autocracy under Augustus. What is more revolutionary than wresting power from the five hundred year old senate, and circumscribing it greatly as a result? He virtually overthrew the Roman republic.
Completely false analogy. Name one other famous scientist with the name "Einstein" or "Newton". It's more akin to suddenly start using the name "Kennedy" out of nowhere when discussing any given political topic. Which Kennedy? Ted? John? Robert?
Charles Thomas Newton, Alfred Newton, Edward Newton, and Hubert Anson Newton. Non-scientific Newtons? Wayne Newton and Huey P. Newton.
The surname "Einstein" is admittedly much more exclusive, but I can think of Einstein's first wife, who collaborated with Einstein to develop many of his own theories: the physicist Mileva (née Maric) Einstein.
Nevertheless, that is a stupid comparison and beside the point I was trying to make. When one mentions the name "Caesar," with no further names attached, most historically educated individuals will think of only one Caesar. I mean, you guessed it yourself, despite your egregious ignorance. Your entire argument is subjective, attempting to somehow "prove" the folly of making a passing remark about a famous historical figure by mentioning only the name by which the figure's prominence is most remembered. Even if one were to mention the name "Kennedy" in a general political sense, most individuals would think of John F. Kennedy first, followed by Robert F. Kennedy, and perhaps, when the context seems to indicate the early Kennedy dynasty, Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.
Again, I have no care for your neurosis. Take it elsewhere, or don't address me.
The latter most certainly was not, which is one of the main fallacies of your argument. Do a quick google search for "Julius Caesar INTJ" and see what consensus you come up with. Even if your other points were sensible (which they're clearly not) this alone destroys the claim of clarity.
Julius Caesar was most
definitely an NTJ, and the only reasoning I see from most people on this forum when differentiating between introversion and extroversion, and determining which was the dominant function in a historical figure, is to emphasize obscure parties and social events that the figure had attended during his or her lifetime, or even more stupidly, that military leadership made them extroverts. They match what they
think is embodied by a type, and use backward logic to make conclusions, instead of analyzing the individual within his own context, and attempting to determine which functions are most present in their behavior. Needless to say, such myopic thinking and skewed logic is more than a little inane.
If you are so deluded that you don't even believe Caesar was an NTJ, then I demand factual evidence that is not your own interpretation, but historical descriptions of Caesar's personality and behavior which would indicate the type specific functions you believe were present. By this, I do not want you to give me descriptions that are so basic that they cannot be extrapolated into an overall profile of his personality, as is so often perpetrated by many members of this forum. Actually, don't do this; I do not want to waste time entering into a pointless debate with you that will remain unresolved and bear no fruit.
Haha, do you take so much pride in group identity that you fear me shaming it? I would've thought godlike beings to be above such trivial fears
No, quite frankly, I do not concern myself with other INTJs, due to the fact that the "group" is hardly unified and comprised of worthy individuals - at least in the context of the current MBTI typology. However, I am an INTJ, and I do believe that the INTJ personality predisposes one to think critically and therefore not to make attempts at being a smart-ass when one has no ground to stand upon. Such behavior is shameful to the INTJ archetype. If you wish to be a clown or an annoying little prat, change your type to ESFP, ENFJ, ENFP, or ENTP.
Most of the INTJs I have seen on this forum have actually succeeded in making me distance myself from the type and the typology in general due to the fact that they are as ignorant as you are, constantly engaging in annoying little arguments even when they are wrong, or worse, when they think they are right. Most don't even consider the traits specific to their type worthy of special consideration. It's pathetic.
I agree with the argument in general, but your examples are retarded. Julius Caesar and Napoleon were ENTJ. Rommel was an ESTJ (possibly ESTP), and Clausewitz was a clear INFJ.
With the exception of Rommel and Napoleon, who could have been ENTJs, particularly the latter during his later years, the rest were most definitely INTJs. Clausewitz displayed typical NT characteristics. Have you even read
On War? Which part of that strikes you as NF? Perhaps you are confusing
On War with
War and Peace, since Leo Tolstoy could have been an INFJ.
Napoleon, during his early childhood, was described by his mother as a very reclusive child who spent most of his time alone, reading books. He was also described as a very unsocial and abrasive individual by fellow students at the Brienne-le-Château military academy, spending much of his time in the library, where he devoted it to reading the biographies of famous, particularly ancient, military generals.