dutchking
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
- Messages
- 3,317
I didn't say a word about parties genius. And your theory that Democrats wanted to keep slavery alive is BS. It was North vs. South, not Republicans vs. Democrats.
A lot of people are stupid.
Leaders that shouldn't be there!
- Thread starter GenocideBringer
- Start date
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
though most Democrats at the time were in the South and the Republicans were mostly in the north, so... though... its kinda funny now that theres a lota Republicans in the south and more Democracts in the north.
Peng Qi
Emperor
It was both. Pretending it wasn't is stupid. The south slowly saw the error of their ways and became Republican. The North rapidly shifted away from their core beliefs and became Democrat during the 60's.
Yep. A lot of them are.A lot of people are stupid.
dutchking
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
- Messages
- 3,317
I can deal with that, but I still didn't say anything about parties. I simply stated that Lincoln is pretty much looked upon (as well as FDR) as a great man except in the south.
FDR was a great man. I don't understand why anyone, Democrat or Republican, wouldn't like him.Yep. A lot of them are.
I freely admit that enlightened despotism is overly utopian. However, Plato's Republic, where he argues that the rulers should be wise and educated and thus be based in rational thought is perfectly applicable. I'm an advocate of a more limited representative government, where you have to have some kind of education before you are allowed to vote. For example, a good first step would be requiring a high school diploma in the US before you can vote.
If stupid people can't vote stupid people into office, it's a step in the right direction.
On the politics of the 19th century, the Democratic party was more conservative and split over the issue of slavery: southern Democrats wanted to keep and proliferate slavery, and northern Democrats had a few people who just wanted to contain it, a few who wanted to spread it, and some abolitionists. They ended up nominating two or three candidates for the presidency against Lincoln, and the split vote allowed Lincoln to get into office. The Republicans were the more liberal party and at the forefront of the Free Soil movement, which explicitly wanted to outlaw slavery in new territories (becoming states), and eventually had the goal of eliminating slavery entirely.
This trend switched around after the Democrats absorbed the Populists and all the liberal Republicans left the party with T. Roosevelt to form the Bull Moose party, another group that was largely absorbed by the Democrats. Left was the business elite and Taft, which is where the party gets its conservative basis today.
Now, on the leaders (and on topic):
I'm against Cleopatra for the Egyptians...assuming you are referring to the all-to-popular Cleopatra VII, the Ptolemy who managed to oversee the downfall of Egypt to a Roman province, she is a pretty bad choice overall. Ramses II and Hatshepsut are both good choices, although an early pharaoh like Menes/Narmer (I forget which is the preferred name now) or one of the other good builders listed would be a good call.
And I agree with cybrxkhan on the WW2 leaders: roughly 10% from a time period of not more than 20 years is way too much for a game covering 6 millenia.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
actually Cleopatra wasn't that bad - she could've ended up quite had history turned a bit more favorable torwards Marc Anthony... but there is one, BIG problem with her: she isn't Egyptian by blood.
I personally don't think Ramses II and Hatshephut are good choices, just so-so. Thuthmosis III is probably the best choice in my opinion, followed by Menes/Narmer (Menes is the Greek name for the legendary first Egyptian pharaoh, who may either be the actual pharaohs Narmer or his son Hor-Aha, both of which were important to the creation of Egypt - the former was said to have united it, the latter to have built important institutions and its first capital at Mn-nfr (Men-nefer), known to the Greeks as Memphis)
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
WWII leaders that _could_ be included are Stalin and Hitler. No more.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
^never Hitler. starts too many debating.
GenocideBringer
King
- Joined
- May 29, 2005
- Messages
- 628
Greatly expanded the power of the federal government...?
Actually the north-south political reversal was a deliberate event. Caused by (or at least it can be linked to) the 1968 elections when the Democratic party split. Gov Wallace ran under what was termed the Dixiecrats, but was officially called American Independents. His candidacy was essentially the fringe deep southern caucus of jim crow states, which had been (rightly) rejected by the mainstream Democratic party. Nixon then ran on a more moderate message (state's rights) appealing to disaffected white southerners. The result of these two events was the defection of a number of democratic congressional candidates to the other side of the aisle in order for them to stay in office, as the vast majority of voters also defected. Keep in mind most people vote straight party line (more true then, but still annoys me today). If your name isn't on the ticket as a republican or democrat, the other name could be Dr. Evil and they'd flick the chad out.
Other events, like the TR split, certainly contributed, but I'd have to say that a deliberate move was in play here when people like Strom switched parties.
There was no 'error of ways' involved; it was marketing by the political parties. Also keep in mind that the South was during Reconstruction dominated by Republicans thanks to the legions of newly liberated slaves voting for Lincoln's ghost. It only went Democrat when various laws restricting black votes were put in place.
On topic.
I'd personally push for TR (who like other major American figures was a force of nature) or even Jefferson, over FDR myself, but I agree with earlier postings that I can't really complain on which leaders are picked and which are not. If I'm winning, it's hardly worth worrying about whose name is in second place and whether they're a deserved foe. Since I'm in America, I can hardly be the best person to judge the reverence other leaders hold in their respective lands. Though I agree Nappy is highly overrated.
Other events, like the TR split, certainly contributed, but I'd have to say that a deliberate move was in play here when people like Strom switched parties.
There was no 'error of ways' involved; it was marketing by the political parties. Also keep in mind that the South was during Reconstruction dominated by Republicans thanks to the legions of newly liberated slaves voting for Lincoln's ghost. It only went Democrat when various laws restricting black votes were put in place.
On topic.
I'd personally push for TR (who like other major American figures was a force of nature) or even Jefferson, over FDR myself, but I agree with earlier postings that I can't really complain on which leaders are picked and which are not. If I'm winning, it's hardly worth worrying about whose name is in second place and whether they're a deserved foe. Since I'm in America, I can hardly be the best person to judge the reverence other leaders hold in their respective lands. Though I agree Nappy is highly overrated.
Peng Qi
Emperor
Created the society of entitlement we live in today, where people expect the government to run their lives for them...
Actually, the Byzantines continued to refer themselves as "Romans" till the end and the empire was called "Roman Empire". Name Byzantine Empire has been used since the 19th century.
Constantine didn't split the empire, but was actually the first one to be a sole emperor after Diocletians reforms. Though he did found Constantinople as "a second Rome". Theodosius I was the last emperor who ruled the whole empire. After his death the eastern and western parts were given to his two sons, although even after this the empire was considered to be one Roman Empire.
dutchking
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
- Messages
- 3,317
Let's see. Some general facts about FDR:
1. Got the United States out of the Great Depression
2. Put us on the war to Winning WWII
@1. If he hadn't it is very likely that the great depression wouldn't have been resolved for many years later.
@2. You can say that any day of the week if people say that Bush is doing a "good job" in Iraq.
Saying FDR shouldn't be in the game because you don't like him is stupid.
I don't feel like having quote wars so:
You say Tamato I say Tomato. (or something like that)
Spearthrower
Thrower of spears
I don't really see why this debate is happening here in a thread about the game, but if you insist, then some counter facts should be given to the stated opinions.
1) While I truly respect his policies, he was not a significant factor in moving out of the Great Depression. Actually, it was the Federal Bank who finally started to increase the volume of cash available that allowed the depression to subsist. They created it in the first place. Milton Friedman, one of the most respected Economists of all times (and one who lived through that period) is the source of my statement.... and to paraphrase him
"Depressions are caused by artificial manipulation of an economy by contracting available cash reserves"
The privately owned Federal Bank manipulated the economy into a depression and then released it just as easily.
While that doesn't detract from FDR's good character, he also can't be ascribed as having a lot to do with it.... but at least he tried!
2) FDR actively encouraged an attack by Japan allowing a ream of insults to be aimed at them, treating them as an enemy while still officially neutral, then purposefully ignoring repeated warnings from Australian coast guards that a large Japanese attack force was on the way. He wanted in to the war - yes, once in he did a good job from there on, but your statement didn't really do justice to the truth.
Don't take this personally, neither of these necessarily detract from the man's greatness, if that's your opinion.... but let's at least be frank about it.
1) While I truly respect his policies, he was not a significant factor in moving out of the Great Depression. Actually, it was the Federal Bank who finally started to increase the volume of cash available that allowed the depression to subsist. They created it in the first place. Milton Friedman, one of the most respected Economists of all times (and one who lived through that period) is the source of my statement.... and to paraphrase him
"Depressions are caused by artificial manipulation of an economy by contracting available cash reserves"
The privately owned Federal Bank manipulated the economy into a depression and then released it just as easily.
While that doesn't detract from FDR's good character, he also can't be ascribed as having a lot to do with it.... but at least he tried!
2) FDR actively encouraged an attack by Japan allowing a ream of insults to be aimed at them, treating them as an enemy while still officially neutral, then purposefully ignoring repeated warnings from Australian coast guards that a large Japanese attack force was on the way. He wanted in to the war - yes, once in he did a good job from there on, but your statement didn't really do justice to the truth.
Don't take this personally, neither of these necessarily detract from the man's greatness, if that's your opinion.... but let's at least be frank about it.
FDR's antagonism against Japan was for a multitude of reasons, such as cutting off their oil imports from the US to try and slow down their attacks on other Pacific countries. And he hated fascist tendencies and absolutism...which may be slightly hypocritical, but I digress. Also, the American military was quite convinced an attack would come at the Philippines instead of Pearl Harbor.
A common point of confusion is how the Japanese codes were broken. At the beginning of the war, the Americans had only deciphered the Japanese embassy/diplomatic codes, not the military codes. So, when the Americans intercepted the message that said "attack imminent, burn your documents and stuff", they didn't know where (that was restricted to the military codes). FDR received information from his staff that indicated the Philippines would be the most likely target. He did not know of the attack on Pearl Harbor until it actually happened, and I have seen no solid proof otherwise.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
actually, i've heard this rather interesting story, don't know if its true, but also don't know if its false.
apparently, the americans were going to declare war on Japan before Pearl Harbor, but the guy who was typing the declaration had some injury to his fingers so it took him way too long to type it, and then... yea, Pearl Harbor.
rather interesting...
apparently, the americans were going to declare war on Japan before Pearl Harbor, but the guy who was typing the declaration had some injury to his fingers so it took him way too long to type it, and then... yea, Pearl Harbor.
rather interesting...
Gaius Octavius
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,016
That sounds ridiculous to me (no offense to you, just the story). There simply wasn't enough unity to go to war before Pearl Harbor. Even the decision to declare war on December 8, 1941, was not unanimous. Isolationism was just too strong... "then came the dawn."
