136+ Leaders, 42+ civs (long)

Out back Jack, Crocadile Dundee, Sidny Opera house, Steve Erwin, Mad Max, and Australian rules foot ball (I love to watch but don't have a clue as to what the rules are). Yea the land down under should be reconized for its vast cultural gifts to the world. :)
 
skadistic said:
I'm no historian but why is Alexander in for greece? I thought Masadonia (sp) was a seperate nation at a diffrent time.



I can't spell either.:)


Very True we have a macadonian exchange student living with us , and Macadonians are NOT Greeks, emphasis on NOT. Shes very proud of Alexander however! :goodjob:
 
Zelgadis75 said:
Very True we have a macadonian exchange student living with us , and Macadonians are NOT Greeks, emphasis on NOT. Shes very proud of Alexander however! :goodjob:

While it is true that he Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia isn't Greek, Greece was upset that a nation chose the name Macedonia, which they felt was a Greek name. As a result, Former Yugoslav Republic was added onto the name.
 
chris8b said:
What they have in common is that, as individual NA tribes, they never rose to the status of great civilization.

(Frankly, in game terms, they shouldn't be represented as more than barbarians)

-C

You have to define your definition of great civilizations before I can know if I disagree. I think that the Iroquois were a great political force with many military and cultural achievements, but I'm not sure if you want more.

BTW, I agree with Skynet888 that Mesoamericans aren't a civ, but a region (the Aztecs and Mayans were fairly diverse from each other anyway, but, if you can't include both, include only one or the other, don't group them together). Indochina was a French territory and is now a region. I think you could make a better case for including Siam, since, like Ethiopia, it was able to stay free of European control.

As for Beowulf, while the epic includes many people who are real, it is uncertain if Beowulf himself is real. Some have speculated that he was a combination of many people, others think that he was completely fictional (the epic of Beowulf was also a way to recite their history, so including the kings would help serve that purpose), and there are people who think he is real. For what its worth, Beowulf isn't anglo-saxon, he's Geat, which was from a tibe in southern sweden that, as the epic predicted, was eventually conquered by the Swedes (of course, the epic was written long after they were conquered, so it really isn't a prediction ;) ). They probably had ties to the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes that invaded England, but they had just as much ties to the Germanic tribes that stayed at home (and probably the Swedes). Beowulf himself never set foot in England during the entire story, traveling only between his homeland and Denmark.
 
Zelgadis75 said:
Very True we have a macadonian exchange student living with us , and Macadonians are NOT Greeks, emphasis on NOT. Shes very proud of Alexander however! :goodjob:

Modern day Macedonians are not anything like Ancient Macedonians. Moderns day Macedonians are Slavic, Ancient day Macedonians were Greek. Even recent archaelogical discoveries point to the Greek Macedonians traced back to the city-state of Argos.

They were considered barbaric because they spoke a Greek dialect, there were many, that was considered uncivilised. In fact, they had little real culture compared to the rest of Greece. Macedonia was just the buffer between Greece and the northern barbarians (slavic people, or the people that would become slavic).

Philip and thus Alexander only came into power due to the paranoia and distrust in that time, where Athens and Thebes formed an alliance to topple Sparta, who was militaristic undefeated in a straight up battle on land for over 400 years since they were a militart state.

Over some 30 years, Athens, Thebes and their many allies had ground Sparta to the ground and in doing so sealed their fate. It was Thebes that took away Sparta's acquired lands which meant their military state could not continue in existance as they were dependant on those acquired lands and the slaves to supply their food and other resources.

When Philip turned on Athens, Sparta was not there to defend against Philip's conquest. It is ironic that he was to defeat Athens and his son destroy Thebes after they revolved after the assassination of Phillip.

The army that invaded Persia under Alexander was Greek, not slavic. Modern day macedonia is a region, it is not a country, it has to ties to the people of Ancient Greece, most who live there were recent immigrants from war torn nations in Northern Europe. They have no history or culture and have tried to acquire one by association.
Greece colonised parts of italy, spain, france, asia minor even northern Africa where Libya is, they have more claim to foreign nations than the modern day Macedonians have of ancient greece. Greek culture dates back to 70,000 B.C. to try and claim part of that heritage is ludicrous.
 
A Lot of People... said:
Everything said on the subject of Alexander as Greek or Not

While I do not claim to know everything about Alexander, he is a main study of mine and I know quite a lot about him. While Macedonians were not considered to be Greek, they shared Greek culture.

Alexander, is an exception to the rule. I would not dare consider Alexander to be any less than Pericles or Leonidas. From the moment he was born, his father arranged to have him raised as a Greek. He was taught by Aristotle, a Greek mind, who would educate him in Greek matters. And let us not forget, when he had finally (though forcably) united the Greeks, it was him who led them to the ends of the Earth.

Alexander is well deserving of being a Greek leader in Civ, for I do not know of another Greek leader who spread the Greek culture as far as Alexander did.
 
And Actually, Macedon wasnt a City State but a monarchy, and its own actual country. He is considered GReek because he did something big and famous and historians needed to pin it to a cultural group, which is obviuosly the Great Greeks.
 
lawine said:
i hope you're joking.

Just search google if you do not believe me. ;)

But here is a good detailed chronology of Greece: http://www.filetron.com/grkmanual/detailgreekchrono.html

Present day Macedonians are of Lusatian decent and have no culture dated before 1300 B.C. They just migrated into the region later on, much later on. They have as much claim to ancient Macedonian heritage as I do of Aborginal heritage here in Australia, where I live.

It would be insulting to the Aborginal people if I tried to do that, and I never would unless I was blood tied to that culture, something which modern day Macedonians are not.
 
I am the Future said:
And Actually, Macedon wasnt a City State but a monarchy, and its own actual country. He is considered GReek because he did something big and famous and historians needed to pin it to a cultural group, which is obviuosly the Great Greeks.

Some greek territories were city states, others were not, some were monarchies, others were semi-democratic.

Athens occupies a much larger region than just a city-state, as did Sparta after it had assimilated some neighbours and become a military state. They had two kings.

Greece was a complex empire. Part of the reason the cultural developments was partly due to the nature of the empire, it was very fragmented and when not at war with a foreign power was usually at war internally.

I read it had over a hundred kingdoms, most of them city-states and minor in size and importance. Even when the Persians invaded Greece, less than half of them united to rally to the defense of the nation. It doesn't mean the other cities of Greece were not Greek either.

Very rarely did the Greek empire unite, and it was better for the rest of the known world that it didn't.
 
For the Dutch. Leopold was a German nobleman who became king of Belgium when Belgium and the Netherlands broke up in two seperate countries (Luxemburg remained in Dutch hands).

Paul Kruger? Who?

For the Dutch it should be William of Orange (Willem van Oranje), Johan van Oldebarnevelt and Willem Drees. Johan was a very important politician in our Golden Age and Willem Drees was our Prime Minister right after WW2 and was brilliant in rebuilding the Netherlands back to one of the richest countries in the world. He was also leader when Indonesia gained independence, he did a lot for pensions and stuff like that.
 
Tavenier said:
Paul Kruger? Who?

He was a Boer, and president of one of the Boer republics(Transvaal?)
 
Zelgadis75 said:
Very True we have a macadonian exchange student living with us , and Macadonians are NOT Greeks, emphasis on NOT. Shes very proud of Alexander however! :goodjob:

You are joking, of course. Modern day Macedonians have nothing to do with the inhabitants of ancient Macedonia. They inhabited the area in 1000 AD and are slavs.

In fact 55% of Macedonia is within Greek territory, 5% in Bulgarian, and the rest is FYROM.

As for the Greekness of ancient Macedonians, that is accepted by every eminent historian. Their culture, language, religion, their everything was Greek.
 
Short note - Spain Why does nobody remember Franco? His politics were Facist but he ruled for a long time and kept that country out of WW 2 tho I am sure he was under extreme pressure from the Axis to join in. I think he would be more appropriate than Cortez.
 
I doubt the Spanish would be delighted with such an inclusion...
 
SuperBeaverInc. said:
He was a Boer, and president of one of the Boer republics(Transvaal?)



Yes, I know. It was sarcastic. Why should he be a Dutch leader? His name isn't even Dutch (Kruger sounds German).
Making him a leader of the Netherlands Civ is like making some Spanish viceroy of New Spain a Spanish Civ leader. And if you want a colonial leader for the Dutch civ then Jan Pieterszoon Coen would be a way better choice. He was Governor-general of the Dutch East Indies. He founded Batavia (on the conquered settlement of Jacarta), expanded Dutch rule in the Indies, centralized the government and made allies (and enemies) amongst the Javan nobility. A very important figure (both good and bad) in the Dutch Golden Age and very important for the course of Indonesian history.
 
Tibetan_Turtle said:
Italy: "Giuseppe", Victor Emmanuel II
Conte di Cavour, Giovanni Giolitti
Giuseppe (if you mean Garibaldi) is better as a military great leader.
VE II and Cavour are 2 separate things. Cavour (Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour) is a good idea. Then, it's difficult to find a good leader in modern times (Berlusconi and Prodi aren't exactly that much :rolleyes: ). If i have to pick one, Giulio Andreotti would be my choice.
 
Back
Top Bottom