3 most wanted leaders!
- Thread starter Haresus
- Start date
The same can be said (in terms of ruling over a vast amount of territory) of many Roman emperors. Caligula was a paranoid, delinquent child who reigned for less than four years. Compared against figures such as Trajan, Hadrian, and Marcus Aurelius, who ruled over even more territory even longer, constructed far more important buildings and monuments, and were also not assassinated for being crazy by their bodyguards, Caligula doesn't stand much of a chance.
If we need to have another figure from the Imperial days of Rome, make it one of the 5 Good Emperors (because we still haven't directly addressed some figures from the Republic of Rome, like Gaius Marius).
JFK? Seriously? The second most important president in US history? More than likely, this was a popular opinion poll, and popular opinion polls always overrate very recent leaders. JFK receives overwhelming adoration from the Democratic Party, and Reagan seems to have achieved cult-like status.
If America was to receive a fourth leader, I think the strongest case can be made for Theodore Roosevelt. He was the last Progressive Republican president, and one of the most successful in office besides Lincoln, who ran on the platform of preventing the spread of slavery into territories, and ended up stopping it. Permanently. The word Progressive, in this day, was in short a pro-scientific, pro-conservation, pro-labor, anti-corruption agenda. I could write at least a couple pages on this guy, but it would do much more good if you checked out online references (even Wiki).
Hell, I would even replace FDR with TR, if it came down to it. I would be content with having Washington, Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt as the American leaders. FDR would be fourth on my list.
Öjevind Lång;8653737 said:
I've advocated before to break up Germany/HRE into Prussia/Austria, but the response is usually lukewarm at best. I think the reason why the Germans don't mind Frederick and Bismarck, despite both being Prussians, is that they were both incredibly successful leaders in their times and aren't associated with the vicious war crimes of a particularly popular later suggestion for a leader. In short, while the Assembly Plant is a fine UB for Germany to represent their quick industrialization and modern productive capabilities, I think it would be better to have an earlier UU (after all, German tribes have a history dating back to the Roman Empire).
The best move for Gustavus II Adolphus, I think, is to break up the Vikings into the Danish (under Canute, which in my game is a renamed-Ragnar, still working on the city lists and such) and the Swedish (under Gustav II Adolf, which they would probably call him over the Latin version of his name).
No wonder, Austria is only a separate state (outside German borders) since 1866/71 and not before 1919 the first steps were done to create an own and unique "austrian nationality" to differ from Germany.
So I would like to see only a single German faction in Civ V (and no HRE either).
But this time with Wilhelm II. as leader replacing Bismark and Frederick the Great. It was under Wilhelm´s reign that Germany/Prussia reached the peak of it´s power, economical might and area ruled.
Beside him other leaders to select should be Maria Theresia (to please the Austrians and she would be another female choice) and Frederick II. (the Holy Roman Emperor) to go away from the current Germany=only Prussia-feeling.
AND please no Hitler as german leader - don´t know why so many want to see him. What has he achieved?
I don't see how that makes sense. Even if you are wanting to go against the whole recentism thing, TR was pretty recent too, and FDR was far more important to American history.
Replacing Bismarck with Wilhelm II would be ridiculous. Bismarck was clearly in charge in the extension of Prussian power, and the creation of Germany, and in positioning Germany to be a world power. Wilhelm II, on the other hand, wasn't even in charge of Germany for a fair portion of his reign, and is of little historical importance compared to other figures in German history.
About the same as Stalin.
But it isn't achievements that people want Hitler in the game for, but historical relevancy and importance.
Stalin did not die with his country lying in ruins, occupied and about to be partitioned due to a reckless war of aggression which was largely his fault.
Even if Hitler is very relevant historically, he brought ruin to Germany and to large parts of Europe, and his inclusion in the game would be highly offensive to many groups of people.
The reason why Prussia/Austria were selected was to represent Germanic civilization with the two dominant German states (not for the reason of highlighting the minutia of the 20th century). The Austrian royal family, the Habsburgs, held the title of Holy Roman Emperor for centuries. Prussia was a significant military power since the 18th century and eventually forms modern Germany.
Figures you go for the blusterer Wilhelm II. Both Frederick II and Bismarck were infinitely more impressive leaders than Wilhelm II. The short explanation is that Frederick II and Bismarck were instrumental in creating the modern German state (there existed a possibility that Austria would form a united Germany, but that perception was trashed after the Seven Years War), which I count as far more important than clumsily stumbling into a war that results in a major German loss.
I guess since America's GDP is the highest under George W. Bush we should throw that schmuck in as well?
TR is less recent than FDR, which still serves my purposes. TR isn't a WW2 leader, which I have railed against for a long while. TR was instrumental in modernizing the American navy, was the first pro-labor union US president, used the courts to bust up major corporations and trusts, founded the national park system and promoted conservation, helped race relations (first African-American to dine in the White House was TR's invitation), emphasized scientific development, negotiated the peace to the Russo-Japanese War (which he won a Nobel Prize for), and passed a wide range of social legislation (which led to the foundation of the FDA for example), passed a law limiting child labor (although the Supreme Court struck it down a couple years later and it wasn't sorted out until FDR), was also involved in financial legislation that would eventually lead to the formation of the Federal Reserve (again, wasn't sorted out until later, but the groundwork was laid in his administration)... The list actually goes on, that's just what I could remember off the top of my head.
Just because he didn't fight a war doesn't mean that he isn't important. And if we had the choice to include 4 US presidents, FDR would be right there as well.
I agree! You can't tell me we disagree on everything.
Undoubtedly, Teddy was important, and if there were to be a fourth leader, I would definitely consider TR (perhaps along with Jefferson and Jackson), but the importance of FDR, as leader for 13 years during both of America's greatest ever struggles (the Great Depression and World War Two), would seem to me to be unparalleled.
Just because it's from WWII doesn't mean we have to not have in the game, just as much as being from WWII doesn't mean it is necessary to include a particular leader.
I agree! You can't tell me we disagree on everything.
Just 90%...
WWII is an exceptionally important historical event, even if you consider that it has been blown out of proportion by 'recentism'. And Hitler was at the centre of that. His empire was larger than Napoleon's, and the Cold War and nuclear weapons (admittedly less important historically, but still worthy of mention) largely resulted from the existence of Hitler. If any leaders from WWII were to be in the game, Hitler would seem to make sense. The whole empire-as-big-as-Napoleon thing is not really all that relevant, because his achievements were, inevitably, the collapse of Germany (comparable to the loss of Napoleon's empire), but its the historical importance, relevance and legacy of Hitler, as opposed to other leaders, than would justify his inclusion over other leaders. I mean, sure, there are probably too many WWII leaders (I don't mind; but that's a matter of taste rather than what deserves to be included), but if there was to be a WWII leader without the obvious restrictions of offending people, Hitler would seem to make the most sense.
The Almighty dF
Pharaoh
1. JFK or Nixon.
2. Meiji
3. Richard the Lionheart
2. Meiji
3. Richard the Lionheart
I disagree with all three of these, to be honest.
Not nearly important enough to warrant inclusion, unless several other US presidents, such as Jefferson, Jackson, TR and Eisenhower (for starters) are also included. JFK probably has more of a case than Nixon, purely due to his cult of personality. But Nixon? Why?
Meiji Japan leader is definitely needed, but it should be Ito Hirobumi.
I would much prefer to see Henry IV, William the Conquerer and George II. If you were going for a popular and well-known leader, I'd prefer Henry VIII. That could be fun.
Not nearly important enough to warrant inclusion, unless several other US presidents, such as Jefferson, Jackson, TR and Eisenhower (for starters) are also included. JFK probably has more of a case than Nixon, purely due to his cult of personality. But Nixon? Why?
Meiji Japan leader is definitely needed, but it should be Ito Hirobumi.
I would much prefer to see Henry IV, William the Conquerer and George II. If you were going for a popular and well-known leader, I'd prefer Henry VIII. That could be fun.
The Almighty dF
Pharaoh
For #1, I really want a cold war leader thrown in, someone to throw against Stalin. JFK'd be nice, but for Nixon we do have Mao.
For #3, it's because I really want to have some crusades. We've already got Saladin.
For #3, it's because I really want to have some crusades. We've already got Saladin.
Undoubtedly, Teddy was important, and if there were to be a fourth leader, I would definitely consider TR (perhaps along with Jefferson and Jackson), but the importance of FDR, as leader for 13 years during both of America's greatest ever struggles (the Great Depression and World War Two), would seem to me to be unparalleled.
Just because it's from WWII doesn't mean we have to not have in the game, just as much as being from WWII doesn't mean it is necessary to include a particular leader.
Just 90%...
All right, you do have a point. But my crusade against WW2 will be unending!
And it's really just on the leader selection that we butt heads--I think we've agreed on a few occasions for other suggestions.
I think the comparison breaks down not on the size of the empire but the long-term impact--Revolutionary France, despite "losing" all the territory conquered during the Napoleonic Wars, still radically changed Europe. They caused incredibly liberal constitutions to be passed in Spain and Prussia, sweeping military reforms, the spread of the metric system, the civil code, the destruction of feudalism, revolutionary ideals that led to the rise of socialism, nationalism, 1848, and more. Moreover, the Coalitions only succeeded against the Revolutionaries by becoming more like them.
You also have to bear in mind the French Revolution marks the first time a major republic forms in Europe since the ([effective if not official] end of the Roman Republic at the hands of Julius Caesar 18 centuries prior. Sure, you had small-time merchant republics and some elective aristocracies (like the elected emperor of the HRE), but nothing on the scale of the First French Republic.
The legacy of Nazi regime is not so glorious. Sure, they spurred military development, but they haven't had the impact the French had on Europe. We aren't all adopting the new Nazi system of weights and measures. We aren't tearing down our democratic societies and putting up Nazi-esque governments in their place (unless you listen to the crazy people, in which case you probably think I'm some CIA agent trying to send programmable brainwashing signals into your brain with patterns on the screen). If anything, the democratic and communist ideologies have had more staying power on the world stage (which is an argument for the Western leaders and, gasp, Stalin and Mao before Hitler).
KeloGBites
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2009
- Messages
- 274
The Cold War less important then WWII? Maybe. But I have to argue against. It is truly a unique period in human history which has no parallel in the past, WWII was a large, very very large war. We've had those. It was a war that introduced a lot of military techniques, and technologies. We've had those as well (In fact most wars cause spurts in technology). But the Cold War, that is something which has never been.
A 40-50 year period in which the very planet came close to annihilation several times! A period of history during which more scientific breakthroughs were made then during any other period of human history, the birth place of proxy wars and the war economy, the entire world was shaped by that period. I'd say it had a bigger impact then WWII on a general scale, granted it would not have come to pass had WWII not happened but still. It's a shame that no leader during that period was capable enough to be presented in Civ (Stalin was in the early Cold War but the proper soviet representative of that period would have to be Khurshev).
A 40-50 year period in which the very planet came close to annihilation several times! A period of history during which more scientific breakthroughs were made then during any other period of human history, the birth place of proxy wars and the war economy, the entire world was shaped by that period. I'd say it had a bigger impact then WWII on a general scale, granted it would not have come to pass had WWII not happened but still. It's a shame that no leader during that period was capable enough to be presented in Civ (Stalin was in the early Cold War but the proper soviet representative of that period would have to be Khurshev).
Well, yes Napoleon had a huge legacy, and I wasn't trying to deny that, but how about the creation of the State of Israel? That will conceivably have very long lasting impacts, and on its own, seems to warrant Hitler's inclusion in the game.
But I'm glad you agree that the communist leaders deserve to be in the game.
Well, yes Napoleon had a huge legacy, and I wasn't trying to deny that, but how about the creation of the State of Israel? That will conceivably have very long lasting impacts, and on its own, seems to warrant Hitler's inclusion in the game.
But I'm glad you agree that the communist leaders deserve to be in the game.
Being that the support for the creation of the state of Israel can be traced back to the Balfour Declaration in 1917, years before Hitler came to power, I don't see where you are going with that.
I didn't necessarily say I agree with the Communist leaders in the game. I'm saying that if you are going to include either Stalin or Hitler, for example, it makes more sense to include Stalin. It's a very conditional statement.
You can argue back to Nebuchadnezzar II for the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, if you so wished (which, incidentally, is one of my major quibbles with wanting ancient leaders under the justification that they are more important; why not just have Adam and Eve as the game's only two leaders, seeing as you could argue back to that if you so desired). But the most pressing reason for the creation of Israel was the Holocaust. Taking steps back from the event (to say the catalyst was the Balfour Declaration, for example) is as subjective and arbitrary, if not more, as simply taking that last step (well, one of the last steps), Hitler, and claiming he was the catalyst. If you know what I mean.
Similar threads
