Leaders that shouldn't be there!
- Thread starter GenocideBringer
- Start date
Gaius Octavius
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,016
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tell me, do you believe Bush let 9/11 happen, too, or do you just think it was hijacked after the fact to further political aims?
FDR did not know any more about Pearl Harbor than Admiral Kimmel did. Everyone was expecting an attack, but not at the center of the Pacific on a quiet Sunday morning. The Philippines were the most likely target, as were other Far East holdings. If he'd known, the least he could've done would be to put American fighter planes up in the air to patrol the skies, but that didn't happen. It would be borderline suicidal to allow an attack on 8 U.S. battleships--wherein the U.S. Navy's main battle strategy lay--than to alert them to imminent danger; the attack still would've galvanized American opinion.
Worse yet, if we operate from this assumption, how could he be sure it would even have that effect? How did he know the bombing would unite the country? How did he know it wouldn't drive America further into isolationism and appeasement? No, if FDR knew--and I don't believe for a minute that he did--then he is one of the worst U.S. presidents in history, because he deliberately failed in his solemn duty to protect and defend America.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
yea, i know. i just thuoght it was... funny, when i heard it.
anyhow, war would come sooner or later anyhow. i mean, Japan was surely going to attack sometime, at the very least. and from their atrocious behavior, if such an attack did happen, it wouldn't be very desirable.
dutchking
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
- Messages
- 3,317
NEVAR compare GW to FDR or DIE.LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tell me, do you believe Bush let 9/11 happen, too, or do you just think it was hijacked after the fact to further political aims?
EDIT: Let's not bring that creepy crap we have at our private forum here...
In the end...
THIS THREAD is insane. The OP is out of his mind. And GO posted in it. IT'S A GONNER!
Gaius Octavius
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,016
I will refrain from posting here about this, however I will discuss it with you further on our private OT thread... 
LightSpectra
me autem minui
I didn't say anything about Byzantium.
When the Roman empire split, the Constantinian dynasty ruled the Eastern half. He moved the capital to Constantinople, and created major east-west divisions with his Christian jazz. I would say that yes, he is where the line between East and West Rome is drawn.
When the Roman empire split, the Constantinian dynasty ruled the Eastern half. He moved the capital to Constantinople, and created major east-west divisions with his Christian jazz. I would say that yes, he is where the line between East and West Rome is drawn.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Actually, i sort of think when that happened, the roman empire became "Byzantium". I mean Rome turned into a backwater city while Constantinople grew to largest city in Europe, possibly the world. I would classify Constantine a Byzantium Emperor as he was the one who created what would be Byzantium in the future
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
I agree with you on everything, Constantine is Byzantine
EDIT: thing in bold... i know you said possibly, but I'll just clarify, Tenochtitlan, at it's peak, was bigger than Constantinople
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Tenochtitlan? Really? Unexpected. I was thinking somewhere in China or India... Who knew the most populated city in the world would be in the least populated continent
mynystry
jaguar warrior from hell
That was Moctezuma II... The Aztec Empire under the rule of Moctezuma (the first) was quiet prosperous
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
the largest city in the world in 1500 should be Beijing or Hangzhou or one of the big Chinese cities, BUT, Tenochtitlan > biggest European cities at the time.
onedreamer
Dragon
Furthermore, I question the importance of Julius Caesar. Even though his name has become synonomous with emperor, he really wasn't that remarkable as a sovereign leader. The fact of the matter is that he only held an autocratic position for about a year (and Dictator for Life for a couple of weeks
He was never emperor, the first Emperor was his successor, Augustus.
The only one I question is JC, myself. I do it since Civ3. He wasn't the civ leader, and Rome surely doesn't miss great leaders to choose from. He's good as a Great General.
Peng Qi
Emperor
Constantinople fell in 1453, so yes, certainly Tenochtitlan was bigger and more glorious than a city that had just been sieged and destroyed.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
^it wasn't destroyed completely... thats why we got "Istanbul not Constantinople" today or something like that.
Inspector Javert
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 510
OK lets get back on topic I don't think Mao, or Stalin should be in the game for the same reason other leaders aren't, namely they were genocidal maniacs.
Peng Qi
Emperor
Constantinople wasn't renamed until after World War I. It was still the same city, but its population had been decimated by blockade and siege by the time it fell. 47 years isn't enough time to recover from that. If you look at the chart, it was actually twice as large 1,000 years before 1,500 AD.
sylvanllewelyn
Perma-newb
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,038
The term "Constantinople" is offensive to a lot of Muslim Turks living in "Istanbul". The unfortunate thing though, is that history textbooks use the name of the place at that time, and for most of history it was "Constantinople". Of course, PC-ness could go the other way, for example in Vietnam, where using the name "Ho Chi Minh City" can get you into trouble with its residents very quickly (personal experience, yuck
)
About the Aztecs sucking, though, I'm more convinced that it was a twisted alignment of all the worse possible factors, such as economic problems, a set of moral and religious values unsuitable to the "anything goes" ethos of oppertunistic explorers, shock, DISEASES that brought about this dramatic downfall. The human sacrifices... it's hard to explain, but basically, they were used to kill conquered peoples, and mass killing as a way to enforce control over the region were just as common in the wars in Christiandom, and two centuries later the conquest of Ming China by the Manchus. If they had rallied all their military might and fought a pitched battle immediately upon arrival... would it be like Ethiopia or Zululand? And why was "not fighting" that awkward anyway? Going back to China, the late Qing dynasty fell without any "dedicated resistance" against the British, and no-one called them "Aztecs of the East". The real question is, was it really that easy to rally an entire nation's military might and gamble everything in an attempt to repel the invaders? If not, then was Darius of Persia really such an unworthy opponant against Alexander?
)About the Aztecs sucking, though, I'm more convinced that it was a twisted alignment of all the worse possible factors, such as economic problems, a set of moral and religious values unsuitable to the "anything goes" ethos of oppertunistic explorers, shock, DISEASES that brought about this dramatic downfall. The human sacrifices... it's hard to explain, but basically, they were used to kill conquered peoples, and mass killing as a way to enforce control over the region were just as common in the wars in Christiandom, and two centuries later the conquest of Ming China by the Manchus. If they had rallied all their military might and fought a pitched battle immediately upon arrival... would it be like Ethiopia or Zululand? And why was "not fighting" that awkward anyway? Going back to China, the late Qing dynasty fell without any "dedicated resistance" against the British, and no-one called them "Aztecs of the East". The real question is, was it really that easy to rally an entire nation's military might and gamble everything in an attempt to repel the invaders? If not, then was Darius of Persia really such an unworthy opponant against Alexander?
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
i know. my point was that the Turks didn't COMPLETELY destroyed it. though they did do tons of looting.
Swein Forkbeard
Nintendo Fan
Take Elizabeth out (this because she's the only reason why Firaxis refuses to rename England Britain) and replace her with the Duke of Wellington (Charismatic/Creative or Financial/Philosophical). If Wellington has the first combo mentioned, Wu Chao (Financial/Philosophical) comes in; I'm really mad right now that China's leader in Civ4 were both benevolent despots; before and after I first played I always thought of China as "enlightening".
Boudica shouldn't be in, period. Wu Chao would have been a much better choice. And if Boudica can be in, so can the Duke of Wellington. (I did expect the Celts to get a new leader in BtS, but I thouht it would be Brian Boru or Robert the Bruce, or, if we want a Celtic woman, Lady Agnes)
Make Mao and Julius Caesar Great Generals instead of playable leaders. (Off topic: Augustus Caesar's real name was Gaius Julius Caesar Octavius)
Switch Hammurabi's traits with Frederick's or Alexander's. I thought he was a wise man, even though he WAS one of Mesopotamia's shrewdest conquerers.
Gilgamesh should be Charismatic, not Protective.
Switch Stalin traits with Shi Huangdi's. Can somebody explain why Stalin is Aggressive? And just because he built the Great Wall doesn't mean Shi Huangdi should be Protective.
Boudica shouldn't be in, period. Wu Chao would have been a much better choice. And if Boudica can be in, so can the Duke of Wellington. (I did expect the Celts to get a new leader in BtS, but I thouht it would be Brian Boru or Robert the Bruce, or, if we want a Celtic woman, Lady Agnes)
Make Mao and Julius Caesar Great Generals instead of playable leaders. (Off topic: Augustus Caesar's real name was Gaius Julius Caesar Octavius)
Switch Hammurabi's traits with Frederick's or Alexander's. I thought he was a wise man, even though he WAS one of Mesopotamia's shrewdest conquerers.
Gilgamesh should be Charismatic, not Protective.
Switch Stalin traits with Shi Huangdi's. Can somebody explain why Stalin is Aggressive? And just because he built the Great Wall doesn't mean Shi Huangdi should be Protective.
