OK, but I believe I am right in assuming that the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation wasn't founded till after his death and had little or nothing to do with him.
Damn, it's a silly Civ to be in the game isn't it?!!!?>!
Leaders that shouldn't be there!
- Thread starter GenocideBringer
- Start date
OK, but I believe I am right in assuming that the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation wasn't founded till after his death and had little or nothing to do with him.
Damn, it's a silly Civ to be in the game isn't it?!!!?>!
Hehe, my bad. I was not aware of the zillions of threads about that topic. Your statement got me interested, and I dug them up and read them and whatever online sources were available about that topic.
No entry about the HRE fails to mention Charlemagne, even though they point out that even though he was the first emperor crowned by the pope, he didn't rule the HRE but the Carolingian empire. So I guess we're both at least somewhat right.
And I agree, the Holy Roman Empire somehow doesn't fit the Civ style.
(On a side note, I once heard the addendum "of the German Nation" came to use in the period were the Habsburgs ruled both Germany and Spain (Charles V?), so to distinguish between the parts of that huge empire they called one section "Of the German Nation" and the other section "Of the Latin/Spanish/?? Nation" or something. But I found nothing about it, it may be just rumour).
No entry about the HRE fails to mention Charlemagne, even though they point out that even though he was the first emperor crowned by the pope, he didn't rule the HRE but the Carolingian empire. So I guess we're both at least somewhat right.
And I agree, the Holy Roman Empire somehow doesn't fit the Civ style.
(On a side note, I once heard the addendum "of the German Nation" came to use in the period were the Habsburgs ruled both Germany and Spain (Charles V?), so to distinguish between the parts of that huge empire they called one section "Of the German Nation" and the other section "Of the Latin/Spanish/?? Nation" or something. But I found nothing about it, it may be just rumour).
Normally I just lurk but the original poster got me riled up so I actually had to sign up for this forum
People think of Churchill as just another leader during WWII. When his accomplishments and contributions are so much bigger than that.
Churchill was the one who got England through WWII. His will, his great oratory skill and his drive. From his predictions and forecasting of Hitler's rise before the war, to his steadfast courage in the face of the horrible hardships Britain endured he was the light that Britain (and Europe) clung to.
Without his strength to guide Britain the results in WWII could have been dramatically different.
His personal relationship with Roosevelt was one of the great factors in the early US involvement in the war (go read about the Lend Lease act) and the continued symbiotic relationship between Britain and America that continues to this day. His involvement in the afterwar dividing of the world (Western and Soviet spheres of influence) was crucial in making sure that the Soviet Union was contained and as it turned out defeated PEACEFULLY.
In addition to his leadership during the war he was also Prime Minster on 2 other occasions and was the longest serving member of parliament when he retired.
By the time of his death he had been recognized around the world as a premier statesman. Upon his death he received a state funeral in England (the first non-royalty to receive one). The funeral was attended by the largest gathering of world leaders until Pope John Paul IIs death.
His role as not only arguably the greatest Prime Minister of Britain but also as one of the saviors of Europe (if not the world) and the effect he had on shaping the 20th century makes it a no-brainer that he should be included. It would be a travesty if he wasn't.
And now I'm done
People think of Churchill as just another leader during WWII. When his accomplishments and contributions are so much bigger than that.
Churchill was the one who got England through WWII. His will, his great oratory skill and his drive. From his predictions and forecasting of Hitler's rise before the war, to his steadfast courage in the face of the horrible hardships Britain endured he was the light that Britain (and Europe) clung to.
Without his strength to guide Britain the results in WWII could have been dramatically different.
His personal relationship with Roosevelt was one of the great factors in the early US involvement in the war (go read about the Lend Lease act) and the continued symbiotic relationship between Britain and America that continues to this day. His involvement in the afterwar dividing of the world (Western and Soviet spheres of influence) was crucial in making sure that the Soviet Union was contained and as it turned out defeated PEACEFULLY.
In addition to his leadership during the war he was also Prime Minster on 2 other occasions and was the longest serving member of parliament when he retired.
By the time of his death he had been recognized around the world as a premier statesman. Upon his death he received a state funeral in England (the first non-royalty to receive one). The funeral was attended by the largest gathering of world leaders until Pope John Paul IIs death.
His role as not only arguably the greatest Prime Minister of Britain but also as one of the saviors of Europe (if not the world) and the effect he had on shaping the 20th century makes it a no-brainer that he should be included. It would be a travesty if he wasn't.
And now I'm done
Well, the British themselves voted that Churchill was the greatest British Person to have ever lived, irrespective of field. That's above the two (edit:three including boudica) english/british queens in the game, Shakespeare, Darwin, Newton etc. OK, they voted Diana in 3rd, but that's still gotta mean something.
GuitarHero
Caligula II
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,486
Churchill sucks! America carried his sorry ass home after WWII.
Flouzemaker
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2007
- Messages
- 341
To me, comparing Civs and leaders is usually like comparing apples and oranges. Different times, and different circumstances lead to very different events.
Gilgamesh
Some believe Gilgamesh is only an epic warrior taken out of Sumerian legends, however, since his name appears as one of the Kings of Uruk, most scholars believe he was indeed a historical figure. The legends are likely a direct or indirect result of Gilgamesh's propaganda, so there's no real way of defining what accomplishment is fact, and what is just a tall tale.
Personally, I have no qualms about a half-mythical leader, especially for a civilization for which recorded history is basically a list of Kings and some recorded conquests.
With only bits and pieces of Celtic recorded history, it's also difficult to find an optimal leader for the Celts. Since Celtic history was an oral tradition that has almost entirely been lost by now, all we really know of their history is mostly collected from other civilizations that have interacted with them. And the latter would mostly stress the times they won against the Celts, and not the times they lost. So the Roman victory against Vercingetorix is well known, while Celtic wins are mostly forgotten. As one of the few Celtic leaders billed with a win, Brennus becomes a decent choice. Boudica is important because of the legendary status she gained post-death, but is certainly questionable in terms of accomplishments. But to me, fame and legendary status can be an acceptable criteria for a civ leader, especially when fairly little is known about a civilization as a whole.
The one truly bad choice, in my modest opinion, is Montezuma, also known as Moctezuma II. Why oh why was he picked over Moctezuma I (who's real name was possibly Ilhuicamina) is beyond me.
Why chose Montezuma, who inherited an Empire at its height and essentially dropped the ball when it came time to defend it over the ruler who expanded it the most is simply mind boggling. What the heck were the Firaxis guys even thinking? That's kinda like choosing Richard Nixon as the premiere American leader!
Gilgamesh
Some believe Gilgamesh is only an epic warrior taken out of Sumerian legends, however, since his name appears as one of the Kings of Uruk, most scholars believe he was indeed a historical figure. The legends are likely a direct or indirect result of Gilgamesh's propaganda, so there's no real way of defining what accomplishment is fact, and what is just a tall tale.
Personally, I have no qualms about a half-mythical leader, especially for a civilization for which recorded history is basically a list of Kings and some recorded conquests.
With only bits and pieces of Celtic recorded history, it's also difficult to find an optimal leader for the Celts. Since Celtic history was an oral tradition that has almost entirely been lost by now, all we really know of their history is mostly collected from other civilizations that have interacted with them. And the latter would mostly stress the times they won against the Celts, and not the times they lost. So the Roman victory against Vercingetorix is well known, while Celtic wins are mostly forgotten. As one of the few Celtic leaders billed with a win, Brennus becomes a decent choice. Boudica is important because of the legendary status she gained post-death, but is certainly questionable in terms of accomplishments. But to me, fame and legendary status can be an acceptable criteria for a civ leader, especially when fairly little is known about a civilization as a whole.
The one truly bad choice, in my modest opinion, is Montezuma, also known as Moctezuma II. Why oh why was he picked over Moctezuma I (who's real name was possibly Ilhuicamina) is beyond me.
Why chose Montezuma, who inherited an Empire at its height and essentially dropped the ball when it came time to defend it over the ruler who expanded it the most is simply mind boggling. What the heck were the Firaxis guys even thinking? That's kinda like choosing Richard Nixon as the premiere American leader!
Evil Twin
Demented Sociopath
Why chose Montezuma, who inherited an Empire at its height and essentially dropped the ball when it came time to defend it over the ruler who expanded it the most is simply mind boggling. What the heck were the Firaxis guys even thinking? That's kinda like choosing Richard Nixon as the premiere American leader!
This one's easy. Ask your average American couch potato about Aztec leaders and they'll invariably say "Montezuma" and no one else. He's the only Aztec leader represented in popular culture. Ironically all thanks to being a weak cretin who was stoned to death by his people for allowing Cortez to use and abuse them for so long.
Gaius Octavius
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,016
Instead of talking about a "leader that shouldn't be there," which would only perpetuate what is likely to turn into a Poland-Hitler-HRE-type thread, I will simply say this falls in the category of "threads that shouldn't be there."
Peng Qi
Emperor
Richard Nixon won the presidency for his second term in the largest landslide in American history. He actually wouldn't be a bad choice for a less warmongery American leader, though Reagan would probably be better.That's kinda like choosing Richard Nixon as the premiere American leader!
Gaius Octavius
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,016
Peng Qi
Emperor
Nixon carried 49 states, too, and the state he lost had less electoral votes if I remember correctly.Reagan carried 49 states, didn't he? That sounds like a larger landslide.
EDIT: Here we go. I didn't remember correctly.
http://www.presidentelect.org/e1972.html
http://www.presidentelect.org/e1984.html
Reagan had more of a percentage of the electoral votes, Nixon had more of a percentage of the popular vote.
Evil Twin
Demented Sociopath
Because he, you know, fixed the votes.
Peng Qi
Emperor
Right.
Flouzemaker
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2007
- Messages
- 341
Granted, I probably shouldn't have picked Nixon in my analogy. He was a popular president, pre-Watergate, and did make a few noteworthy accomplishments, like his breakthrough in Chinese-US relations (That was him, right?).
I was only looking for the "worst possible" American president and didn't want to name Dubya, lest the conversation degenerate into off-topic ramblings regarding modern politics.
But I don't know enough of American history to pick a "least worthy president to be a civ leader." William Henry Harrison, maybe? Really, I don't know, and it doesn't really matter. come to think of it, no American President failed his people the way Montezuma failed his.
I did say comparing leaders and civs was like comparing apples and oranges... and it seems I fell into my own trap, lol!
Anyhow, all I meant is that Montezuma is the worst possible leader choice for the Aztecs.
I was only looking for the "worst possible" American president and didn't want to name Dubya, lest the conversation degenerate into off-topic ramblings regarding modern politics.
But I don't know enough of American history to pick a "least worthy president to be a civ leader." William Henry Harrison, maybe? Really, I don't know, and it doesn't really matter. come to think of it, no American President failed his people the way Montezuma failed his.
I did say comparing leaders and civs was like comparing apples and oranges... and it seems I fell into my own trap, lol!
Anyhow, all I meant is that Montezuma is the worst possible leader choice for the Aztecs.
Evil Twin
Demented Sociopath
Evil Twin
Demented Sociopath
Considering that if the Aztec empire was alive today, it's people would consider Monty a traitor. Therefore the rough equivalent is Benedict Arnold leading America.
Maybe not totally innocent but he didn't fix any votes.
GuitarHero
Caligula II
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,486
dante alighieri
Warlord
Either a joke or a troll attempt. It is statements like this one that give others a poor view of Americans.
