Which leader shouldn't be in, in favor for a Japanese and Spanish one?

[cybrxkhan]

Vercingetorix is probably the best choice for the Celts.

but anyways, i think De Gaulle was the most "uesless"/"unnesscesasry" addition. just goes to show despite all the new representations and worldy views of Civ, (liked adding Ethiopians, Khmer), Civ is still too "Westerno-centric"... *sighs*

and as you guys can see, De Gaulle is beating Boadicea on this poll.

 

[Sansevero]

From this expansion, I would remove de Gaulle. I'm ambivalent toward Boudica... She would fit into a fictional/romanticised leaders mod (is there already one?), along with Ragnar, Romulus (immune to packs of wolves; infact, can feed on them...), Agamemnon, Uncle Sam... and Gilgamesh, too, I suppose.

And I find Mao and Stalin are poor choices for the epic game.

 

[Thedrin]

Lincoln and de Gaulle. I'm not strictly opposed to third leaders but I would prefer second leaders (with a few exceptions such as Charlemagne of France).

Boudica would have gotten a vote since I wouldn't have included the Celts in the game at all but I decided to limit myself to two choices.

 

[Dutch Canuck]

De Gaulle. He's one of those nice-to-have-but-only-after-everyone-else types I wasn't impressed by his inclusion and I think others are more deserving.

 

[Lars_Domus]

When it comes to French leaders, I'd consider Charles de Gaulle only second to Napoleon. He's one of those larger-than-life characters, you know, and a French icon. Surely, if someone has to go it'd have to be The Sun King.

I won't really fret to much over the third leader-thing, anyway. BtS offers so much diversity in the new civs and leaders that I, for one, am quite content.

 

[Tercio]

Charles de Gaulle greater than Louis Quatorze? Incroyable! Louis XIV presided over the wealthiest, mightiest, and most populous kingdom in Christendom and provided the very model of Baroque Absolute Monarchy that lesser kings and princes strove to imitate for decades onward. Not least in this regard was the abandonment of the courts and aristocracies of their own mother tongues in exchange for French. Even Frederick the Great, depicted as a nationalistic folk hero by the likes of the Nazis and other German romantics, regarded the German language as an uncouth tongue fit only for stable boys.

Though, it's true Louis XIV wouldn't have been much if it wasn't for the true genius who transformed France from a traumatized land wrought with civil war and religious schism into the the first nation of Europe: Armand Jean du Plessis Cardinal de Richelieu.

 

[TheLastOne36]

i like De Gaule but i voted for Boudicca and Lincoln. GIVE US A PIC OF BOUDICCA IF SHE REALLY IS THAT HOT!!!!!!!

 

[scy12]

Abraham Lincoln and Boudica. I would also remove Luis , Brennus and possibly Washington or Stalin. Add a Spanish(Philip II/Charles V) , Japanese (Meji), Roman(Trajan) and either a Persian/Sassanid or an Arabian Then add another suitable leader .

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Now you're beginning to sound like Grimus, LastOne.

De Gaulle is a nice addition to the game. The only objection most people have is that there were other deserving civs, which I would've solved by giving them a second leader too. But, alas, I'm not in charge...

scy12, you're insane if you think Washington should be removed!

 

[TheLastOne36]

Now you're beginning to sound like Grimus, LastOne.

Ahh yah these are the kind of things that make me speechless.

 

[methane]

Charles de Gaulle greater than Louis Quatorze? Incroyable! Louis XIV presided over the wealthiest, mightiest, and most populous kingdom in Christendom and provided the very model of Baroque Absolute Monarchy that lesser kings and princes strove to imitate for decades onward. Not least in this regard was the abandonment of the courts and aristocracies of their own mother tongues in exchange for French. Even Frederick the Great, depicted as a nationalistic folk hero by the likes of the Nazis and other German romantics, regarded the German language as an uncouth tongue fit only for stable boys.

Though, it's true Louis XIV wouldn't have been much if it wasn't for the true genius who transformed France from a traumatized land wrought with civil war and religious schism into the the first nation of Europe: Armand Jean du Plessis Cardinal de Richelieu.

Oh yeah, you can take away Louix XIV but only if you put Richelieu in.

France had 2 ages where it was the biggest player in Europe. The first is the era that climaxes in Louis XIV spreading high culture, and the second is when Napolean ran all over Europe spreading nationalism, legal reform, and the metric system. While it's been an important country in other times (including the post WWII era), those are the 2 eras that needed to be represented first.

 

[scy12]

Now you're beginning to sound like Grimus, LastOne.

De Gaulle is a nice addition to the game. The only objection most people have is that there were other deserving civs, which I would've solved by giving them a second leader too. But, alas, I'm not in charge...

scy12, you're insane if you think Washington should be removed!

Washington is a father of a Nation but he was not a great general. Although he does have qualities that make him better than other leaders. i.e Montezuma. Personally i don't think he did anything special and other Generals could have won also against the British. Roosevelt or Truman are worthy additions to the game and to the American side. But while maybe others ( Hitler , Tojo ,etc) created the opportunities for them , Roosevelt is the one that pursued them , earlier than others, and is the one that in the end captured all the opportunities that rose , to rise his country to the top.

Remind me again why is Washington so worthy of a spot ?

 

[TheLastOne36]

Because he created america and was the first president of the united states?

Wow i sound like an american.

 

[scy12]

Because he created america and was the first president of the united states?

Wow i sound like an american.

And that isn't so important to me. Since , if Washington didn't do it , another one would.

 

[methane]

Washington is a father of a Nation but he was not a great general. Although he does have qualities that make him better than other leaders. i.e Montezuma. Personally i don't think he did anything special and other Generals could have won also against the British.

Remind me again why is Washington so worthy of a spot ?

Well, if you accept that America is worthy of a spot, it's hard to argue any leader should be put in ahead of him. The whole office of the Presidency was essentially created with him in mind, and how he acted in office was taken as the example for everyone who followed him. The fact that he was an isolationist influenced US policy all the way up until WWII.

While he probably wasn't a great tactical general, he was an inspiring one. It's quite possible the continental army would have completely fallen apart during the winter at Valley Forge without him.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Some data from the Wikipedia (this time, it's accurate.)

The Electoral College elected Washington unanimously in 1789, and again in the 1792 election; he remains the only president to receive 100 percent of electoral votes.

Washington proved an able administrator. An excellent delegator and judge of talent and character, he held regular cabinet meetings that debated issues; he then made the final decision and moved on.

Washington became the exemplar of republican virtue in America. More than any American he was extolled for his great personal integrity, and a deeply held sense of duty, honor and patriotism. He is seen more as a character model than war hero or founding father. One of Washington's greatest achievements, in terms of republican values, was refraining from taking more power than was due.

He also set the stage for how the American Presidency would be viewed, providing many of the precedents for later generations. In this he was enormously influential.

 

[scy12]

Well, if you accept that America is worthy of a spot, it's hard to argue any leader should be put in ahead of him. The whole office of the Presidency was essentially created with him in mind, and how he acted in office was taken as the example for everyone who followed him. The fact that he was an isolationist influenced US policy all the way up until WWII.

While he probably wasn't a great tactical general, he was an inspiring one. It's quite possible the continental army would have completely fallen apart during the winter at Valley Forge without him.

I disagree . Roosevelt is the best leader of the American nation and one of the best leaders of the twentieth century. Just because Washington is the "Father" ,or an example (Mythical character) , it doesn't mean anything to me. In my opinion other leaders could have done likewise or better as Washington .

 

[Tercio]

Washington became the "American Cincinnatus" retiring to his farm after doing his two terms setting the US safely on the track of constitutional government. There are many stories of incidents in which his enormous influence in the nation's veterans could have allowed him to propel himself to the heights of dictatorial power, something we so often see in other revolutionary and post-colonial regimes. But Washington's own belief in the Revolution, the Constitution, and the ideals on which the government was founded made him the perfect guardian of the new republic.

As far as his generalship goes, despite being no Hannibal, he DID win the war. He never surrendered to a British commander (note: the only surrender of Washington's career was to a French force in the French and Indian War), never lost his army. If he avoided battle, it was because he knew the abilities and limitations of the men under his command, mostly raw recruits and unreliable militia. Also, he recognized that his first duty was simply to keep the army in existence as its destruction would mean the end of the revolution and reassertion of British rule. Fabian strategies aren't overly glamorous but they are effective given the right circumstances.

 

[Tercio]

I'm surprised that Roosevelt is somehow better than Washington in your eyes, scy12. In fact they're very similar in that they kept the nation's hearts locked on the end goal: victory. Also, both men defined the office of the presidency for their respective eras. Washington was the classic aloof and nonpartisan ideal striving to promote compromise and national unity and keep the US firmly out of foreign strife. Roosevelt fully inaugurated the "imperial presidency" that's still with us today, massively expanding the president's mandate and pursuing a strongly interventionist foreign policy.

 

[Instant_Cereal]

I disagree . Roosevelt is the best leader of the American nation and one of the best leaders of the twentieth century. Just because Washington is the "Father" ,or an example (Mythical character) , it doesn't mean anything to me. In my opinion other leaders could have done likewise or better as Washington .

Would you have the audacity and courage to defy the world's greatest military and colonial power at the time, even after being defeated by it and driven into hiding? If you could've assumed absolute power and nothing was stopping you and people even encouraged you to assume the power, would you surrender that power to pave a future road that still exists to this day?

I think it's easy to sit at your computer desk and say "yes, I would've done like Washington did". For every Washington there are a millions of Louis'.

Edit: Oh yeah, and I agree with your opinion of Roosevelt; easily one of the greatest leaders among the world in the past 100 years. America has had some good leaders (and abysmal ones, too) which is why I have a hard time choosing who should be added in Civ. If there were ever a 4th American leader it would definitely be Teddy Roosevelt. His traits would be a no-brainer to me: imperialistic and charismatic, though organized would fit well, too.