Leaders that shouldn't be there!

[Swein Forkbeard]

I noticed that America, Persia, and the Ottomans didn't have their best leader (historically) playable until Beyond the Sword.

The Aztec leader seriously needs to Montezuma I, Itzcoatl, or Ahuitzotl.

And I can't believe the Chinese leader choices; they stink from heaven. How come we don't have a T'ang or Ming leader; those two dynasties were like the best days in Chinese history. (I'm okay with Shi Huangdi since China is named after him, but MAO???!!! YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!!!)

And I think that Stalin and Shi Huangdi should have their trait combos switched.

And even though I am only 12 years old, I had heard of the Khmer a lot before BtS came out.

 

[AfterShafter]

And even though I am only 12 years old, I had heard of the Khmer a lot before BtS came out.

Just curious, what's your ethnic background, and where does your familiarity with the Khmer come from?

 

[Peng Qi]

I noticed that America, Persia, and the Ottomans didn't have their best leader (historically) playable until Beyond the Sword.

America still doesn't have Theodore Roosevelt, so their best historical leader is still not playable.

 

[Angst]

Lincoln was the closest thing that America has ever had to an atheist president (he was very agnostic). He thought about religion and morality constantly.

If that's the truth, then it's not nationalistic rubbish, but pure American freedom. Nice. It's okay then... Never thought of America as an actual 'literal' or 'philosophical' country, that is.

 

[Peng Qi]

If that's the truth, then it's not nationalistic rubbish, but pure American freedom. Nice. It's okay then... Never thought of America as an actual 'literal' or 'philosophical' country, that is.

Well, what's kind of funny if you ask me is that if the people had really known how close to an atheist he was, I think they might not have elected him. The country itself has never been very philosophical, but if you asked me for leader traits for Lincoln, philosophical and charismatic is what I would say.

 

[Vauk]

The inquisition was bad, but witch hunts were not state sanctioned in the vast majority of instances. The crusades were nothing short of a noble attempt at defending people who were being systematically slaughtered by invading Muslims; they were in no way inherently evil, only some of the people involved did evil things. The concept itself was noble.

No no no no no no no.... Please go read up on the first crusade. It was not some noble attempt to save people being slaughtered by the Muslims. The Muslims at that time were not the Muslims of today. Byzantine asked for help in a war and the Church and Europe used that as a pretext for a holy war to liberate the holy land. IT WAS A HOLY WAR WITH NO PROVOCATION.

During the First Crusade Christians were incredibly bloodthirsty and committed many atrocities against the Muslims.

Needless to say from then on Muslims returned that in kind.

I think it is poor logic to say that Christians were riding to the rescue of a Muslim genocide. It was the events of the first crusade that shaped the later crusades. And the events of the conflict over the holy land that shaped current relations between Christianity, Judaism and Muslims today. It might be good for a country that is currently embroiled in a conflict (i'm assuming your American) with Muslims that you understand the history and the course of events that shaped the world you live and your sons/daughters/father/etc are dying in.

EDIT:
If you take my advice and actually read up about the first crusade be sure to read bout the Sieges and subsequent slaughters of Antioch and Jerusalem.

 

[DrewTate]

The Christians were by no means innocent in the Crusades. But the initial crusade was launched to stem the advancement of the Muslims who were moving west and to regain the Holy cities.

vauk: It might be good for a country that is currently embroiled in a conflict (i'm assuming your American) with Muslims that you understand the history and the course of events that shaped the world you live and your sons/daughters/father/etc are dying in.

that was a little below the belt, and, in fact crazy of you to claim that the slaughters in the first Crusade (by both sides) led to the way that Muslims are towards Christians now. They are like that because they hate the ideas of separation of Church and State, freedom, liberty, technology, etc.

Edit: To the guy who said Julius Caesar should not be in the game? Didn't Julius Caesar establish the Roman Empire...? Pretty much. The first emperor of Rome, the greatest empire ever.
*to the guy who said George Washington should be out of the game: Seriously? All he did was lead the Americans against at that time the greatest empire on earth, lead a country to its freedom and then lead that country as President after the war? Not just any country, the greatest country of all time militarily and economically.

 

[Vauk]

that was a little below the belt, and, in fact crazy of you to claim that the slaughters in the first Crusade (by both sides) led to the way that Muslims are towards Christians now. They are like that because they hate the ideas of separation of Church and State, freedom, liberty, technology, etc.

You really gotta go read some history (and not wiki style). Go read some stuff written by ACTUAL historians. At that time the Muslims were culturally FAR superior to the Western world. They were also MUCH MUCH MUCH more tolerant to other Religions and faiths than Christians.

You are being blinded by present stereotypes towards Muslims.

" ideas of separation of Church and State, freedom, liberty, technology, etc."

In all 4 of those respects AT THAT TIME Muslims were FAR better than Christians.

History shapes the present. And in many ways Christianity is responsible for the mess the Middle East and the Muslim world is in today.

It is not hitting below the belt to suggest that people learn something about the shaping of a faith and region that will define the 21st century.

 

[Vauk]

To the guy who said Julius Caesar should not be in the game? Didn't Julius Caesar establish the Roman Empire...? Pretty much. The first emperor of Rome, the greatest empire ever.
*to the guy who said George Washington should be out of the game: Seriously? All he did was lead the Americans against at that time the greatest empire on earth, lead a country to its freedom and then lead that country as President after the war? Not just any country, the greatest country of all time militarily and economically.

I agree, the guy who was talking about Julius Caesar is either a troll or too stupid to live. I would group him with such generals as Alexander, Genghis Khan when talking about military prowess. He created the Roman EMPIRE. Until him Rome was a regional power with some influence. Under him and his nephew Augustus Rome CONTROLLED the known world.

Not just any country, the greatest country of all time militarily and economically.

Really? What are you adjusting for the Romans with inflation? Seriously though 2000 years from now will people talk about Americans like we talk about Romans? Somehow i doubt it.

Washington should be included. General. President. Founding Father. There is a reason that a lot of places/monuments are named after him

 

[DrewTate]

I meant they hate them now, which is true. Not that they hated them in the past at the time of the Crusades. And I know plenty, thank you.

 

[LightSpectra]

You really gotta go read some history (and not wiki style). Go read some stuff written by ACTUAL historians. At that time the Muslims were culturally FAR superior to the Western world. They were also MUCH MUCH MUCH more tolerant to other Religions and faiths than Christians.

You are being blinded by present stereotypes towards Muslims.

" ideas of separation of Church and State, freedom, liberty, technology, etc."

In all 4 of those respects AT THAT TIME Muslims were FAR better than Christians.

Laugh out loud at saying Muslims had a better idea of separation of Church and state. That idea didn't exist in medieval Middle East. I don't mean that it was bad, I mean it literally didn't exist. In Muslim countries, the government was God's government. And every government opposed to it is, sadly, opposed to God's government and thus in need of extermination. Hell, the entire legal system was based on the Qur'an.

Also, liberty/freedom are debatable. Depends on what area of Europe we're talking about. Hungary, Poland and monastic communities were beginning to develop the ideas of fundamental human rights and modern democracy, while Spain was regressing because of fanaticism and book burning. The only thing they certainly had over Europe was the technology.

 

[Peng Qi]

No no no no no no no.... Please go read up on the first crusade. It was not some noble attempt to save people being slaughtered by the Muslims. The Muslims at that time were not the Muslims of today. Byzantine asked for help in a war and the Church and Europe used that as a pretext for a holy war to liberate the holy land. IT WAS A HOLY WAR WITH NO PROVOCATION.

So you're saying that the Muslims peacefully entered Spain, Africa, Palestine, and Turkey? Please. The fact that you think that the Crusades were a war without provocation makes you look like a complete historical ******. The Muslims had been attacking Christianity for hundreds of years before the first Crusade began.

During the First Crusade Christians were incredibly bloodthirsty and committed many atrocities against the Muslims.

Yep. Mostly in retaliation for actions that the Almohads took in Spain.

Needless to say from then on Muslims returned that in kind.

Bull. Have you ever read any history? You do know that Muhammad spread his faith by the sword, right? Well, I guess you obviously don't.

It might be good for a country that is currently embroiled in a conflict (i'm assuming your American) with Muslims that you understand the history and the course of events that shaped the world you live and your sons/daughters/father/etc are dying in.

I do understand it. Far better than you do, apparently.

EDIT:
If you take my advice and actually read up about the first crusade be sure to read bout the Sieges and subsequent slaughters of Antioch and Jerusalem.

I highly suggest you read about the Reconquista and Byzantium's struggles against the Arabs before you presume to understand anything about the reasoning behind the Crusades.

 

[LightSpectra]

You do know that Muhammad spread his faith by the sword, right?

His successors did, but not so much him. The war he fought against Mecca was because they were trying to execute his followers.

 

[Peng Qi]

His successors did, but not so much him. The war he fought against Mecca was because they were trying to execute his followers.

He also fought against Arabia:

Spoiler :

As you can see, the conquest of Christians began during the mid 600's. The first crusade didn't begin until 1095. That's nigh-infinite patience on the part of the Christians.

 

[LightSpectra]

He didn't fight much against non-Meccan parts of Arabia. The majority of his territory was attained peacefully.

 

[Peng Qi]

He didn't fight much against non-Meccan parts of Arabia. The majority of his territory was attained peacefully.

Majority. Not entirety. Plus, read the Koran if you want to see his support of spreading religion by the sword.

 

[DrewTate]

Christianity!

And yeah to add to the conversation, the Muslims were pushing on Christianity's borders on all sides.

 

[LightSpectra]

I have read the Qur'an. Though it's biased, and we may never know the reality of it, Muhammed wasn't aggressive according to its events.

 

[Peng Qi]

I have read the Qur'an. Though it's biased, and we may never know the reality of it, Muhammed wasn't aggressive according to its events.

It's true it could have been corrupted by later leaders as Muhammad was not literate and could not write it himself even if he had wanted to, but the best available evidence we have says that Muhammad was not against spreading religion by the sword and even seemed to favor it; even if he was against it, his immediate successors weren't.

 

[dante alighieri]

You really gotta go read some history (and not wiki style). Go read some stuff written by ACTUAL historians. At that time the Muslims were culturally FAR superior to the Western world. They were also MUCH MUCH MUCH more tolerant to other Religions and faiths than Christians.

You are being blinded by present stereotypes towards Muslims.

" ideas of separation of Church and State, freedom, liberty, technology, etc."

In all 4 of those respects AT THAT TIME Muslims were FAR better than Christians.

History shapes the present. And in many ways Christianity is responsible for the mess the Middle East and the Muslim world is in today.

It is not hitting below the belt to suggest that people learn something about the shaping of a faith and region that will define the 21st century.

Or go rent or buy "The Crusades" with Terry Gilliam of Monty Python fame. Its not as good as an actual history class, but its entertaining and informative.