[History] Unexpected Leader Personalities

[Iranon]

@ nzcamel: Short answer - yes. I found your pathetic (in the literal sense rather than the colloquial one) exposition interesting... but I'd say she used religion masterfully rather than ascribing extreme devotion or spirituality to her.

Montezuma by most accounts considered himself more of a priest and scholar than a ruler or war leader. Since the general outlook of civlizations rather than the leaders also seem to play a role... religion and spirituallity shaped Aztec civilization a lot under his rule, and were his downfall according to the popular versoin of Aztec history.

Being Spiritual needn't be a good thing... none of the traits are without problems: being Organised has made some dictatorships even more inhumane, in the context of Civ4 Culture could refer as much to propaganda as art so Creative is suspect, the distinction between a Charismatic leader and a demagogue is rather shaky etc.

Some leaders had very varied characteristics... I'd be fine with Creative, Financial, Philosophical or Charismatic for Elizabeth but Spiritual isn't the first I
d think of.

 

[nzcamel]

@ nzcamel: Short answer - yes. I found your pathetic (in the literal sense rather than the colloquial one) exposition interesting... but I'd say she used religion masterfully rather than ascribing extreme devotion or spirituality to her..

Thanks Iranon. By every way I look at it sticking with her Prodestant beliefs wouldn't've been very masterful had it got her killed. And it almost did. Based on this I'd say Elizabeth was extremely devoted.

Montezuma by most accounts considered himself more of a priest and scholar than a ruler or war leader. Since the general outlook of civlizations rather than the leaders also seem to play a role... religion and spirituallity shaped Aztec civilization a lot under his rule, and were his downfall according to the popular versoin of Aztec history.

And religion and spirituallity didn't shape England under Elizabeth? Religous freedom in the west was pioneered in two places... Germany with Luther, and England with Henry and Elizabeth. I'm not saying that every intention of theirs was for it to be that way. But to pretend that these weren't massive events which have affected the world that you live in today, is to have your head in the sand.

Being Spiritual needn't be a good thing... none of the traits are without problems: being Organised has made some dictatorships even more inhumane, in the context of Civ4 Culture could refer as much to propaganda as art so Creative is suspect, the distinction between a Charismatic leader and a demagogue is rather shaky etc.

I didn't say that it does have to be a good thing... just that the leaders/civs whos trait includes spiritual all tend to be religiously brutal (the Indians aside) which appeals more than mother Theressa types. I don't disagree with what you say in that paragraph otherwise.

Some leaders had very varied characteristics... I'd be fine with Creative, Financial, Philosophical or Charismatic for Elizabeth but Spiritual isn't the first I
d think of.

Thats because she did so much stuff and was strong on alot of fronts. Once again I'm not saying she was more spiritual than Monty, but she was not less either. Likewise with most of the spiritual leaders. They have been given spiritual because it was part of their identidy but largely no more so than alot of the leaders who haven't been given it. Maybe they wore it more on their sleeves than most. Doesn't make you less spiritual to be quieter about your beliefs... or does it?

For the game tho they had to give everyone 2 traits. In real life some of these leaders had five or six. Some had only one. But for the game's sake I understand.

 

[Shirastro]

Dude its protestant...with a T not a D.

Iranon explained it perfectly, all you need is to listen

P.S. Watching the 2 Elizabeth movies does not make you an expert, no matter how good they are

 

[nzcamel]

Dude its protestant...with a T not a D.

Iranon explained it perfectly, all you need is to listen

P.S. Watching the 2 Elizabeth movies does not make you an expert, no matter how good they are

I'd like a reasoned discussion. Not a, 'you can't spell so shut up.' I disagree with Iranon. And you've added nothing to change my mind. Put some info on the table which disputes my claim.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Thanks Iranon. By every way I look at it sticking with her Prodestant beliefs wouldn't've been very masterful had it got her killed. And it almost did. Based on this I'd say Elizabeth was extremely devoted.



And religion and spirituallity didn't shape England under Elizabeth? Religous freedom in the west was pioneered in two places... Germany with Luther, and England with Henry and Elizabeth. I'm not saying that every intention of theirs was for it to be that way. But to pretend that these weren't massive events which have affected the world that you live in today, is to have your head in the sand.



I didn't say that it does have to be a good thing... just that the leaders/civs whos trait includes spiritual all tend to be religiously brutal (the Indians aside) which appeals more than mother Theressa types. I don't disagree with what you say in that paragraph otherwise.



Thats because she did so much stuff and was strong on alot of fronts. Once again I'm not saying she was more spiritual than Monty, but she was not less either. Likewise with most of the spiritual leaders. They have been given spiritual because it was part of their identidy but largely no more so than alot of the leaders who haven't been given it. Maybe they wore it more on their sleeves than most. Doesn't make you less spiritual to be quieter about your beliefs... or does it?

For the game tho they had to give everyone 2 traits. In real life some of these leaders had five or six. Some had only one. But for the game's sake I understand.

I'm sorry, Luther and Elizabeth pioneered religious freedom
Tell that to the Irish.
It was the Enlightenment, thinkers like Voltaire and the American and French Revolutions that pioneered religious freedom. Luther, Henry VIII and Liz pioneered the nationalisation of church assets and the "right" of rulers to decide what their subjects were allowed to believe.

 

[nzcamel]

I'm sorry, Luther and Elizabeth pioneered religious freedom
Tell that to the Irish.
It was the Enlightenment, thinkers like Voltaire and the American and French Revolutions that pioneered religious freedom. Luther, Henry VIII and Liz pioneered the nationalisation of church assets and the "right" of rulers to decide what their subjects were allowed to believe.

Ummmm, the Irish were and are largely catholic. Their belief systems weren't changed by the protestants. Sure some later on some on both sides used the difference in belief between protestant and catholic to stir trouble but it's difficult to lay it at the feet of these three historical figures. Neither Henry nor Elizabeth were overtly known for persecuting catholics.

How do you think that the enlightenment happened!? Do you think that the all powerful, all knowing, 'our way or the highway' Catholic church just suddenly decided to stop burning people at the stake who disagreed with them? One day they were convicing Galileo on pain of death or worse to recant his beliefs, the next they were allowing Voltaire to lay into the major doctrines of the church? One day they burned Giordano Bruno to death, the next they opened up St Peter's to a debate between Islam and Christianity. Oh no I don't think so.
It's a funny thing that the enlightenment followed behind the reformation... Think about that for a moment.

I thought that prior to these three the catholic church owned all church property anyway. It certainly wasn't owned by individuals... And what you were allowed to believe was dictated by the pope. He could do this contrary to what the bible said because it -the bible- was only allowed to be written and read in Latin which only very small parts of the population could read or understand. Alot of the clergy couldn't evan read or understand latin!
It was the protestant churches who started to translate the bible into the other laungages of europe.

And here's the trick. Once people could read the bible for themselves then suddenly they could make up their own mind on what Christianity was or wasn't about. I'm not saying there weren't any rulers in their countries who still behaved like they had a monopoly on 'truth.' But there in an infinate difference between the ignorance of believers in the catholic church before the reformation... and the possible knowledge of believers in the protestant churches after the reformation.

Some protestant leaders were just as bad as catholic ones. The more I read of Calvin, the less I like him. But at least you had a greater choice wether to belong to his church and community; or wether you went to a catholic church; or wether you went to a lutheren church. Or... gradually... wether you didn't go to church at all. Before Henry/Liz & Luther there was no choice.

The horse had bolted.

Apply a couple hundred years and some other events and you could pretty much openly say whatever you wanted about almost anything. Yeah, I got an idea... lets call this 'the enlightenment'

I do agree that the American revolution made another gigantic step towards religous freedom. I guess the French one probably did too but I don't know enough about it.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Ummmm, the Irish were and are largely catholic. Their belief systems weren't changed by the protestants. Sure some later on some on both sides used the difference in belief between protestant and catholic to stir trouble but it's difficult to lay it at the feet of these three historical figures. Neither Henry nor Elizabeth were overtly known for persecuting catholics.

How do you think that the enlightenment happened!? Do you think that the all powerful, all knowing, 'our way or the highway' Catholic church just suddenly decided to stop burning people at the stake who disagreed with them? One day they were convicing Galileo on pain of death or worse to recant his beliefs, the next they were allowing Voltaire to lay into the major doctrines of the church? One day they burned Giordano Bruno to death, the next they opened up St Peter's to a debate between Islam and Christianity. Oh no I don't think so.
It's a funny thing that the enlightenment followed behind the reformation... Think about that for a moment.

I thought that prior to these three the catholic church owned all church property anyway. It certainly wasn't owned by individuals... And what you were allowed to believe was dictated by the pope. He could do this contrary to what the bible said because it -the bible- was only allowed to be written and read in Latin which only very small parts of the population could read or understand. Alot of the clergy couldn't evan read or understand latin!
It was the protestant churches who started to translate the bible into the other laungages of europe.

And here's the trick. Once people could read the bible for themselves then suddenly they could make up their own mind on what Christianity was or wasn't about. I'm not saying there weren't any rulers in their countries who still behaved like they had a monopoly on 'truth.' But there in an infinate difference between the ignorance of believers in the catholic church before the reformation... and the possible knowledge of believers in the protestant churches after the reformation.

Some protestant leaders were just as bad as catholic ones. The more I read of Calvin, the less I like him. But at least you had a greater choice wether to belong to his church and community; or wether you went to a catholic church; or wether you went to a lutheren church. Or... gradually... wether you didn't go to church at all. Before Henry/Liz & Luther there was no choice.

The horse had bolted.

Apply a couple hundred years and some other events and you could pretty much openly say whatever you wanted about almost anything. Yeah, I got an idea... lets call this 'the enlightenment'

I do agree that the American revolution made another gigantic step towards religous freedom. I guess the French one probably did too but I don't know enough about it.

Elizabeth burned more Catholics than 'Bloody' Mary did Protestants although over a longer period of time. There was no choice under Henry/Liz & Luther beween going to a Protestant Church and a Catholic one. Catholics were looked on as a potential fifth column in Protestant countries for centuries. It was only after Catholic countries such as France and Austria broke the power of the Catholic church in the 'Age of Enlightenment' that Protestant countries began accepting that Catholics could be good citizens. Even so Catholics remained 2nd class citizens in Britain well into the 19th century

 

[CHEESE!]

Elizabeth did NOT stick to her Protestant faith her whole life. She pretended to be Catholic when Bloody Mary was on the throne. She did not go to Protestant church during that time.

 

[nzcamel]

Elizabeth did NOT stick to her Protestant faith her whole life. She pretended to be Catholic when Bloody Mary was on the throne. She did not go to Protestant church during that time.

Going to a protestant chuch doesn't make you a protestant, just as going to church in general doesn't make you a christian. Obviously she wasn't very good at pretending as they arrested her with the intent of removing her from the succession because they wanted a catholic to be heir.
The grounds apon which they arrested her would suggest that she spent just a wee bit of time with some fellow protestants.
I'm not to worried if she didn't stick to her faith her whole life. It doesn't change that she was a big part of the foundation of religous freedom in the west.

 

[CHEESE!]

-to be a devout protestant, as you say, you need to go to the church of worship.....How devout can you be without going to church?

and yes, she did fail to disguise her fathers faith in her, and they also arrested her mostly on suspicion

 

[nzcamel]

Elizabeth burned more Catholics than 'Bloody' Mary did Protestants although over a longer period of time. There was no choice under Henry/Liz & Luther beween going to a Protestant Church and a Catholic one. Catholics were looked on as a potential fifth column in Protestant countries for centuries. It was only after Catholic countries such as France and Austria broke the power of the Catholic church in the 'Age of Enlightenment' that Protestant countries began accepting that Catholics could be good citizens. Even so Catholics remained 2nd class citizens in Britain well into the 19th century

I'd like to see your stats to back that up. Show me the numbers! I don't have them either, but I'm not the one making the claim that Liz killed more than 'bloody' Mary. And why would she kill lots of catholics. It wasn't illegal in England (or Germany) to be a catholic! (maybe it was under Calvin elsewhere, but I've already said he was a nutter.) Unlike under Mary and most other catholic regiemes of the time where it was heresy and punishable by death to be a protestant. I'm not saying that Liz killed no catholics, but a different broken law would have to be involved.

What do you mean there was no choice!? Sure in England they standerdised all churches into the church of England, but catholics at the time still out numbered protestants 10 -1! You think that they weren't largely free to worship the way they wanted to? Take a look at this page & specifically the 6th paragraph down:

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/history/

Both catholocism and anglicanism were incorperated togeather. Not a bad concession from the 'victors.' Put it this way. No one was being executed simply for professing their catholic faith.

And in Germany catholocism was still larger than protestantism. In Germany there was alot of negotiation between the protestants and the catholics on what was to happen inside the the Holy Roman Empire. The Emperor stayed catholic. Do you think catholics suffered under a catholic Emperor?... No I didn't think so.

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/habs/hd_habs.htm

Of course Protestants didn't trust catholics very much. I doubt if the shoe had been on the other foot wether catholics would've trusted protestants very much either.

You still haven't put forward a real argument to counter that religous freedom in the west started under Henry (for all the wrong reasons)/Liz and Luther.
I didn't say finished. I said started...
You didn't address much of anything I said in my previous post. Like the enlightenment being post-reformation. Don't change the topic again! Directly rebut some of what I'm saying with some evidence and logic.

 

[nzcamel]

-to be a devout protestant, as you say, you need to go to the church of worship.....How devout can you be without going to church?

and yes, she did fail to disguise her fathers faith in her, and they also arrested her mostly on suspicion

Ummm, here is where your lack of understanding of Christianity, (esp protestant Christianity) really shows. I can commune with God and/or other Christians anywhere. I don't need a big flash building to do it. More of the church meets in small houses than do in what you call a 'church' throughout the world. The church is the people, not the building.

Also, once again to express your protestant faith too strongly back then was to ask for a trip to the stake. Alot of protestants were careful about when and where they got togeather.

Also again. I'm happy to concede she wasn't a hardcore christian all her life. It still doesn't take away from the fact that Liz was a big part of the birth of freedom of religious expression in the west.

 

[CHEESE!]

I surrender- im atheist...

Anyway to bring the thread itself back, i think Montezuma has a very wierd personality... it was the Spaniards who declared war and wiped them out, Montezuma was a good host to them..

 

[magicalsushi]

I surrender- im atheist...

Anyway to bring the thread itself back, i think Montezuma has a very wierd personality... it was the Spaniards who declared war and wiped them out, Montezuma was a good host to them..

Definitely a case of the leader's personality being more representative of the civ itself; the Aztecs were extremely bloodthirsty, and fought in the name of their religion. I'm not convinced that Montezuma was a particularly friendly guy though - perhaps less of a psycho than he seems to be in the game, but probably not very friendly all the same. He was only nice to the Spaniards because they looked strange and he thought they were gods. If they'd been a neighbouring tribe, he wouldn't have hesitated to order their slaughter.

I'm glad this thread is starting to get back on topic; it had a lot of potential before it got hijacked.

 

[Ur_Vile_Wedge]

Another candidate for that field goes to Saladin. In Civ, he goes all crazy if you don't convert to whatever religion he happens to be fielding, wheras in life, his contemporary political allies were often mad at him for being "too nice" to the Crusaders and other Christians in the Middle East.

And maybe Izzy goes too far in that direction as well. Her reign (and those of her immediate successors) alongside Ferdinand saw quite a bit fo battle and conquest and bloodhsed over Italy, wheras she tends to be your best friend in the world if you share a religion.