"Missing" Leader pet peeves

[SmartMuffin]

They aren't as bad, because one is much more offensive to the average person than the other. That's what matters.
It is sad when the average person dictates complicated matters.

elitist much?

These aren't complicated matters. It's just a game. We aren't talking about cloning Stalin or anything...

 

[sturmtrupp]

Our founding fathers would be considered terrorists by today's standards. But what is life, just a cycle. History always repeats itself because the minority of the people who know nothing of history become the majority...

I completely disagree. The problem is that the people teaching history know very little of history and, or warfare, hence say stupid things. For instance, the classic example is that George Washington used guerilla tactics and therefore was a terrorist of his time. But this could not be further from the truth.

1) Washington did not attack soft targets.
2) The guerilla tactics of his time was essentially the age old traditions of skirmisher warfare. And when the Brittish were presented with ability to crush the rebellion the failed to do so.
3) After the first winter at Valley Forge, when the colonies trained their troops they began to fight and maneuver just like traditional armies.

 

[sir_q]

But anyway.... Lenin is better for Civ, I think. He did much more.

Arguable. Lenin was the figurehead of the Revolution, and indeed was responsible for much of the growth of the Bolshevik party. Nevertheless, Lenin was foremost a revolutionary. Perhaps he would have proven a great leader in peacetime had he lived past 1924, but we could spend months arguing that..

Stalin does, however, have concrete proof of leadership ability. He was a brutal, paranoid madman who takes the blame for the deaths of twenty million Russians. But he did industrialize Russia in time to win the second world war; Stalin was handed an agricultural Russia of peasant farmers and left an industrial Russia strong enough to compete directly with the United States.

Ergo, in terms of modern Russian leaders, Stalin is probably the most reasonable choice.

 

[sturmtrupp]

3) Mao? I guess... Really he was a worse tyrant than Hitler, but I suppose it is hard to find "Great" Chinese leaders that have any sort of progressive/liberal ideology. Qin Shi Huang isn't very nice either, but Mao??Maybe Chang Kai-Shek? (Not all smiles with him either but on the other hand, George Washington was a slave-owning terrorist).

2) Romans in general. Not only is Julius Caesar not the only interesting emperor, but it might have been nice to see some of the leaders of the Republic like Cincinnatus.

1) French leaders: Napoleon; ok, but Louis XIV? Please. That is almost as bad as George III as an American leader. I wanna see Vercengetorix!

And of course I miss them changing clothes with the different periods. Civ3 Modern Jeanne d'Arc was hotter than Catherine.

Not to mention chiang kai shek was defeating Mao and would have easily done so, had the Japanese not invaded. And in turn fought the Japanese very well all things considered.

As for Julius Caesar I could not agree more. A socialist tyrant, that had roughly four years of control, but was a marvelous general. But better then Scipio Africanus, or the general that defeated the Huns, can't recall his name. But what about Augustus, or Aurelius. This is the most famous empire in the history of mankind, and they always choose the tyrant.

As for France, I like how they chose a Corsican. Although I disagree with the Sun King criticism, since France was the center of culture, even if he was a militarily dumb.

My main problem is the Civ's left out. Noteably, Byzantines one of the longest running empires, the Ottomans which played a huge role in shaping Eastern Europe and Western Asia and any sort of Babylonian civilization.

 

[William Wilson]

These aren't complicated matters. It's just a game. We aren't talking about cloning Stalin or anything...
If these were simple matters then why have we not reached a conclusion?

 

[Clown2TheLeft]

Conspicuous by Absence:

Ramses II
Giaus Marius
Theodore Roosevelt (Far better choice than FDR, in my never-for-a-nanosecond-humble-opinion)
Darius

...

Or am I just being silly by keeping on-topic?


Later!

--The Clown to the Left

 

[Legionarius]

Augustus Caesar would've made a wonderful second Roman leader.

Rameses II would've made a good second Egyptian leader

Mao sacrificed millions of his people in order to industrialize quicky. Not a very good ruler from my point of view. Chiang Kai Shek isn't ideal either. The Kuomintang during the second Sino-Japanese War was corrupt as hell, and Chiang concentrated more on stocking supplies for a post-war war against Mao and the communists rather than focusing on Japan. I think that Sun Yat Sen would've been a better choice than Mao, but I think too many people would be like "Who the **** is he?"

 

[Elhoim]

and the Native Americans were terrorists

Excuse me??

 

[ombak]

Excuse me??

Ever hear of context Mr. Quote-miner?

Put his post back together and do some reading comprehension.

 

[Makaan]

Noteably, Byzantines one of the longest running empires

the Byzantines are already in the game as Rome; the Roman Empire in the west was gone by 476 AD, but it continued in the east. we don't need two different empires unless we are going to have the Roman civ be replaced with the Roman civ (sounds like I made a mistake but in Byzantine times it was called the Roman Empire, Byzantine is just used to describe the more recent 1,000 years of Roman Empire

 

[King Flevance]

3) Mao? I guess... Really he was a worse tyrant than Hitler, but I suppose it is hard to find "Great" Chinese leaders that have any sort of progressive/liberal ideology. Qin Shi Huang isn't very nice either, but Mao??Maybe Chang Kai-Shek? (Not all smiles with him either but on the other hand, George Washington was a slave-owning terrorist).

I honestly don't know too much about Chinese history to add any ideas here, but I totally dont like Washington as Americas leader choice. Teddy, kudos. Lincoln would have been nice again, we all love him. Honest Abe. George's "I can't tell a lie" was a load all within itself and most likely pure folklore anyways. Heck, Ben Franklin would have been better than Washington. You could even get nice sci/culture benefits off him.

2) Romans in general. Not only is Julius Caesar not the only interesting emperor, but it might have been nice to see some of the leaders of the Republic like Cincinnatus.

I am not saying he should be in there but I would play Coligula (sp?) I have tried to think of what traits he would have. Agg/+1 to unhappy faces

1) French leaders: Napoleon; ok, but Louis XIV? Please. That is almost as bad as George III as an American leader. I wanna see Vercengetorix!

And of course I miss them changing clothes with the different periods. Civ3 Modern Jeanne d'Arc was hotter than Catherine.

Jaon should not have been taken out. I never played France but I am a big Joan d'Arc fan. How can someone of her magnitude in history be passed over? God himself/herself (however you want to see it) put Joan there to keep the French Empire alive and kickin'.

 

[telcus]

1) French leaders: Napoleon; ok, but Louis XIV? Please.

You don't like the idea of King Loius being in there? He wasnt called the Sun King for nothing you know. Le Roi founded Versailles (a wonder in Civ!), expanded French influence in the new world and in the other powers of the old world (for a time at least) and built up the French army and navy.

I'm only shocked about this because I'm reading a book that references him at the moment. Neal Stephenson - The Confusion, a fiction book I know but researched heavily and set in the real world, also this thread has got me to reading more about him. But it seems to me that he looks to be the perfect leader to be included in Civ. Better than Joan of Arc who wasnt actually a French reagent.

 

[NCC81701]

I never said they were perfect. But they were NOT terrorists.

The reason our founding fathers are great is because they were the first (not counting the glorious rev) to say that if the government infringed on the natural rights of the people, the people had a right to overthrow that government.

What are the modern terrorists doing by contrast? They're blowing up their own people to "persuade" them not to vote. They're destroying infrastructure built for the benefit of their own people. They're trying to install theocratic dictators who would subject the whole population to the rule of Wahabist Islam.

Bear in mind as well, we aren't trying to annex Iraq or Afghanistan. We aren't laying any kind of claim to the region. Nor are we subjecting any kind of tax on those nation's people. In fact, we are spending BILLIONS to fight the terrorists in those countries.

The word "terrorist" as so many of you are so fond of using would include all the various european resistance movements of world war 2, the phillipine guerillas who fought the Japanse occupation of their home, and pretty much anyone else who dared to fight an unjust or oppressive government.

From your arguements you are mixing up the cause with the means. The cause between the Founding fathers and religious fundementalist are totally different i think we can agree on that. Yet their method, the use of violence, to achieve a political goal is the same. The Sons of Liberty have tared and feather poor tax collectors who are simply working for the government, this is no different than beheading "contractors" for working for our government the end result is the same, death and humiliation to express their agitation against the government. Sons of Liberty also treaten American merchant who buys British made product to help boycott the British.

When the British passed the tea act, it gave monopoly to the East Indian Trading company by cutting out the middleman in selling their tea; making tea cheaper for all the colonist. Of course our founding fathers weren't happy about colonist getting cheap tea because they were the middleman that bought the tea from England and sold it to the colonist. What did they do? destroyed the tea that was sent to the Americas for the benefit of the colonist (cheap tea) because the social leaders (our founding fathers) got their profits cut by the tea act.

Killing and hummilating innocent government workers, destroying state property that was meant for the benefit of the people... sound pretty terroristic to me.

Also bare in mind that the Iraq people didn't ask for a revolution, in fact when they did shortly after the first gulf war we turned a deaf ear to them. Frankly the US doesn't need to annex countrys to have them on a leash, just control their economy (and this is why some people are angry at the US). The problem is control. As long as the US is involved, i would argue that the Iraqi people would not feel that they are in total control of their own government. Until they feel that they are in total control, there will be resentment of the US government however small that resentment maybe.

The difference between the resistance in Europe and the Phillipines resistance is that they were working for the Allies. The Allies won the war and we wrote the history books giving them the label "resistance fighters." Of course someone like... Ho Chi Minh who also fought the Axis in Vietnam and then fought for the independance of Vietnam from the French didn't get the same label, becase he to our eyes he was a communist. For the vietnamese people however, he was a freedom fighter.

What i am trying to say here is that, purely by the modern definition of terrorist and terrorism, our founders clearly fits the bill. In the end terrorist and terrorism is just a label. It is no different than the label "freedom fighters" that we so love to use for our founding fathers (incidentally we also called Osama Bin Laden a freedom fighter before he turned on US and attacked US interests). Labels are put on by politicians to advance their cause. Thus it is better to judge a person by what they are trying to achieve, than to judge a person based on a gross label that encompasses a large group of people good or bad. Unfortunately, the terrorist label that our current president loves to use happens to, by definition, cover some of our founding fathers.Based on what our founding fathers were trying to achieve however, they were much better men than the insurgents and Osama dispite the fact that both groups used violence to advance their political cause.

1) Washington did not attack soft targets.
2) The guerilla tactics of his time was essentially the age old traditions of skirmisher warfare. And when the Brittish were presented with ability to crush the rebellion the failed to do so.
3) After the first winter at Valley Forge, when the colonies trained their troops they began to fight and maneuver just like traditional armies

1) Washington attacked soft targets alright or else we wouldn't have won. Attacking Trenton before the Hessians have woken up and be ready for battle!?! That's absured and a totally uncivilized way of conducting warfare! At least that is what the British would have said at the time. But they lost, and we wrote the history books. No one in their right mind attacks a hard target unless they have to. The only thing that has changed through time is what "soft targets" included.
2) Again like at the time, it was considered as an uncivilized method of warfare to not stand up and facing your enemies. The only changed is what civilized warfare means... if war can ever be civilized anyways.
3) Of course at the time there is not as much technological difference in training and equipment and that training over the winter at valley forge can produce an army that can fight traditionally. Do you really expect that the Iraqi insurgent can hide in a cave over a winter and have the Armor/Air Power/ mobility/ intelligence/ and logistics to fight U.S. in a convential battle? No, they are not stupid, they go for what they can do; that's hiding in the shadows and attacking our marines when they aren't looking.

(disclaimer: I am in no way saying that I endorses the action of the insurgents and the likes of Osama Bin Ladin. In fact i think these people really do not care for even their own fellow countrymen and they do not, under any circumstances, fight for freedom. I wish they would stop attacking the Marines who are trying to help their country just as much as any one here. I am simply putting forth an arguement that since both the insurgency and our founding fathers used violent means of achieving their political goals then by definition of a terrorist, that word applies to both groups.)

 

[ombak]

How can someone of her magnitude in history be passed over? God himself/herself (however you want to see it) put Joan there to keep the French Empire alive and kickin'.

Well... I see it as she was crazy and hallucinated.

 

[LAnkou]

From your arguements you are mixing up the cause with the means. The cause between the Founding fathers and religious fundementalist are totally different i think we can agree on that. Yet their method, the use of violence, to achieve a political goal is the same.

i don't like to repeat myself but in my previous post i already wrote that their methods were not the same:
in one case, violence against a political regime and its representant
in the other, blind bombing on poor civilians in a marketplace who have nothin to do with the political regime.

the second one cause terror to the entire population because it is totally arbitrary, so comes the name "terrorism".

you will never convince me than fighting for freedom and killing innocent people can be held at the same level

by the way, i really don't care about the fouding fathers (i'm french) but i really dislike people saying such monstruosity.
It's like saying both masturbating and rape are sexual sins (Benoit XVI said that).

 

[sturmtrupp]

Conspicuous by Absence:

Darius

...

Or am I just being silly by keeping on-topic?


Later!

--The Clown to the Left

Darius was the grand loser. I think he was only glorified, over Xerxes, by the greeks because of this...

And yes you are being silly.

 

[sturmtrupp]

1) Washington attacked soft targets alright or else we wouldn't have won. Attacking Trenton before the Hessians have woken up and be ready for battle!?! That's absured and a totally uncivilized way of conducting warfare! At least that is what the British would have said at the time. But they lost, and we wrote the history books. No one in their right mind attacks a hard target unless they have to. The only thing that has changed through time is what "soft targets" included.

Fredrick the Great, also in the game, did something very similar against the Austrians. And he was only idolized in Europe and at times very favorable to the Brittish.

Soft Targets have not changed through out time. People just did not necessarily adhere to him. For that matter that is how most 16th, 17th and 18th century armies got chump change. Armies were famous for raping small villages and towns for money and anything they wanted.

Again like at the time, it was considered as an uncivilized method of warfare to not stand up and facing your enemies. The only changed is what civilized warfare means... if war can ever be civilized anyways.

I think that is bad history. Cavalry would constantly use these tactics during skirmishes. What Washington failed to give early on, was a decisive victory to the Brittish, since his army until Prussian trained would not be able to handle a pitched battle. And when the Brittish did have colonials, they refused to make a decisive move. Great tactics on one side, poor tactics on the other.

Of course at the time there is not as much technological difference in training and equipment and that training over the winter at valley forge can produce an army that can fight traditionally. Do you really expect that the Iraqi insurgent can hide in a cave over a winter and have the Armor/Air Power/ mobility/ intelligence/ and logistics to fight U.S. in a convential battle? No, they are not stupid, they go for what they can do; that's hiding in the shadows and attacking our marines when they aren't looking.

If they didn't why have we all throughout the last century trained foriegn countries how to fight against communist? How much training does one get when going into the Army? 10 weeks of basic training? What was perhaps lacking was was military officers. But the colonials got this as well with French and some German support. BTW, I believe that on land Colonials had a HUGE technological advantage, by essentially inventing the rifle.

 

[King Flevance]

Well... I see it as she was crazy and hallucinated.

So did most of France at that time. But 'unknown' things happened that got France rallied behind her. Whether you see it as divine intervention or just some crazy girl with a flag and a horse. Her beliefs gave morale to a broken Kingdom and rallied them to fight back in a time shrouded in hopelessness.

EDIT: She had to have something backing her up. A simple peasant girl would not normally be allowed to lead armies back then. That alone says that she was able to get others to believe in her ideas or beliefs.

 

[xioyux]

Puting stalin would have been as bad as putting hitler. I hate it when people have no ideas what kind of atrocities he commited (caused more deaths than hitler too).

Pfft. Let's face it: Almost all of the leaders in Civ, and famous leaders from history, were imperialists who tried to oppress people and massacred them if they resisted. Some more or less than others.

I don't see people complaining about Genghis Khan.

Hitler and Stalin are uncomparable to any of the leaders used in this game. Also, not many people care about things that happened about 800 years ago (ghenkis khan).

 

[sturmtrupp]

the Byzantines are already in the game as Rome; the Roman Empire in the west was gone by 476 AD, but it continued in the east. we don't need two different empires unless we are going to have the Roman civ be replaced with the Roman civ (sounds like I made a mistake but in Byzantine times it was called the Roman Empire, Byzantine is just used to describe the more recent 1,000 years of Roman Empire

This is true, but I view the Byzantines as Greek. I think its culturally they were a much different civillization as well, not to mention the grievances that orthodox christians had with Rome. IMO Rome died when Alaric aided the loss Brittain, Spain, Africa and pillaged Rome. The End.