"Missing" Leader pet peeves

[tatean]

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.

I think the person was confusing Louis XIV with Louis XVI. A big difference there.

 

[Clown2TheLeft]

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.

You're right: he was the grand loser. But I don't think that necessarily bars him from being included, does it? I mean, there's more than a few leaders that are in Civ IV that got their asses handed to them at one point or another. He's still a recognizeable name, no? It's not like he's overly obscure...

And I am being silly, I know. But that's why I'm...


--The Clown to the Left

 

[ombak]

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.

Oh, no doubt. But that doesn't prevent her from being crazy. Just means that France followed a hallucinating peasant girl and it worked!

I think though that while she is a key figure in French history she is not much of a civilization leader: short "reign", mostly inspirational role.

 

[xifeng]

This whole 'terrorist' argument could rapidly degenerate, although I personally think that it is valid to have the debate. Please do not take offense at what I am about to say... I am merely trying to provide an alternative perspective.

My opinion is that FROM THE BRITISH perspective, the American Founding Father were a combination of Traitors and Terrorists. The dream of a land of liberty was probably not that different to a American fighting alongside Washington from the dream of eternal bliss with 70 virgins to Moslems fighting in Iraq currently.

Thus, most Iraqis probably support some degree of resistance to the Americans who invaded their country for (from their perspective) no reason. The only reason that remains remotely valid of the many given by the Bush administration was to 'liberate' the Iraqi people, but that is on a par with the Spanish invading America in 1775 to free them from the British and I suspect would have been equally unwelcome.

A great thought. May never appear in Fox News though.

I saw some posts compared George Washington to Osama Bin Laden. Why Osama Bin Laden, not G.W.Bush? Bush has killed more innocent than laden did, right?

 

[Tragic]

Almost all of the deaths attributed to Mao was due to famine during the Great Leap Forward. Reputable sources have the numbers ranging from 50 million people to 10 million during 1959 to 1962. To quote the Wikipedia article, these deaths from famine was caused by "One of the ten deadliest NATURAL disasters of the twentieth century". Flooding alone killed millions of people. Over 55% of arable land was affected by severe drought. (source Wikipedia). Imagine your food production reduced by 55% in a country of 700 million people. Bad things will happen. (this lasted for 3 years btw).

You have the right to call Mao a monster. But please focus on actual history. Numbers can be deceiving. Also remember that Mao was an enemy of the western world. It is easy and acceptable for the western world to spin fact and history and lump Mao in with the Hitlers and the Stalins.

If you want to learn about real history, try wikipedia. Good free encyclopedia with views from both sides of an argument so you don't blind yourself with the predjudice of others.

 

[Tavenier]

Julius Caesar was never emperor. Octavianus (Augustus), who came after him, was.

I was surprised that Rome only had one leader. They have so many leaders in history worth a place in Civ. Like Diocletianus. He was one of the most important leaders of Rome ever.

As for Louis XIV. He should be in. He was the longest reigning king in all of history (73 years) and in a time in which France was one of the most influental countries of the world.

 

[秦始皇]

Qin Shi Huang isn't very nice？！ at that time he is the greatest one in world ,as the first empire in the world ,I do believe even in human history ,there are few can compare with him.

 

[Stilgar08]

It's just a fact: One Man's freedom-fighter is the other ones Terrorist!
You can really see it from this discussion...
Some of you here discuss from a completely biast point of view.
I don't wanna put oil in the fire so I say no more about this Founding-father/terrorist issue. IMHO the Brits would agree on the terrorist point and the only fact they were called revolutionaries was, that the word "terrorists" very likely wasn't created, yet

Concerning Hitler: No German in his right mind would want Hitler to be in the game! Nor do I ! And it's a pity that this discussion comes up every now and then...

I also doubt, Russians would be flattered when you bring Stalin back... (Civ I came out when the time's were different and there was no such thing as PC against the "Sowjets", that's why he was in...)

I don't know how chinese people think of Mao so I won't comment... At least he didn't commit genocide against one "racial" and/or "religious" group but killed for pure "power-reasons" AFAIK...

 

[DystopianYuri]

First of all I'd just like to say hello. I've been lurking for the last couple of days, reading up on Civ 4 in impatient anticipation (I'm a mac person so it's a long wait for me ) and this thread has induced me to register. I blame my history nut nature.

Anyway, I'm not going to weigh in on the terrorism/freedom fighter debate, I'm just not brave enough. I do have a few thoughts about some of the "missing" leaders though.

Rome
As far as a second leader goes, someone more culturally minded is a little difficult to find in a civilization that basically revolved around war. Augustus would be good, a very manipulative leader who was an atrocious general (but smart enough to employ good ones). Another fun option would be Vespasian. Vespy spent the majority of his rule focusing on economics and infrastructure. Unfortunately, he's not so well known and not particularly remarkable when compared to the big names. Finally, an interesting possibility would be someone like Constantine. A christian leader would be a fun tie-in with the new religious aspect of the game.

Greece
With Alexander playing the role of homicidal conqueror and all round butchering bastard Greece could do with a more peaceful leader to balance the books. One of the philosophers would be ideal, but they were never leaders, not even figureheads in the way Gandhi was. Pericles, as has been mentioned before, wouldn't be a bad choice however. The problem with Greece is that it stands for too many ideals to us: democracy, absolute monarchy, philosophy, culture and of course the incredibly fractious and warlike nature of the Greeks rounds out a civilization that could work with any combination of traits.

Egypt
Thank God Cleo is gone! It always annoyed me that the person who lost Egypt to the Romans was the leader, talk about a bad omen. I like the choice of Hatshepsut as she ruled successfully, if not spectacularly and I can understand why they'd chose a queen over someone like Ramses II, women rulers of note are few and far between in history so adding them to the game when possible is a good idea, just for the variety. That being said, it would be nice to see a more warlike Egypt as well, one that breaks from the religious trait. For this position I can think of no one better than Ptolemy. The difference between Egyptian Egypt and Greek Egypt is considerable and Ptolemy would be a fun ruler to tie in the economic powerhouse that was Egypt with the empire building nature of Alexander and his generals.

Persia
This is a tough one here. It's nice to see Cyrus in the game and it would be even nicer to see one of the Sassanids join him. Someone like Ardashir or Shapur would be great, as they continued the fine old tradition of handing the Romans their hides and the Sassanids were the kings who returned Persia to native rule rather than the Hellenic kings who were the successors to Alexander's empire.

Arabia
Ok, one last one. If all the other civs have their share of butchering bastards, then the Arabians should get one too. Saladin after all is the epitome of chivalry and fair play, which just is no good when you're out to conquer the world now is it? The answer is the man who really beat the Crusaders, Baybars. A man who could match the worst of the Crusaders for barbarism and then take things a step further, Baybars is right up there with Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon and so on as a first class butchering conqueror. He even looked mean.

Well, there are more civs that only have one leader but I don't know much about their history. Besides, I think I've said more than enough already. This has become quite a long first post, sorry about that, I tend to get overly enthusiastic when it comes to history.

 

[TheDervish]

At least they had the guts to include Washington instead of Lincoln.

I'd prefer Theodore Roosevelt, bigtime They put the wrong Roosevelt in Civ IV, IMO.

Persia
This is a tough one here. It's nice to see Cyrus in the game and it would be even nicer to see one of the Sassanids join him. Someone like Ardashir or Shapur would be great, as they continued the fine old tradition of handing the Romans their hides and the Sassanids were the kings who returned Persia to native rule rather than the Hellenic kings who were the successors to Alexander's empire.

Shapur would be a great addition, as would Shah Abbas I during the Safavid dynasty. Shah Abbas managed to get musketeers and artillarymen during his time, among other non war related accomplishments

Arabia
Ok, one last one. If all the other civs have their share of butchering bastards, then the Arabians should get one too. Saladin after all is the epitome of chivalry and fair play, which just is no good when you're out to conquer the world now is it? The answer is the man who really beat the Crusaders, Baybars. A man who could match the worst of the Crusaders for barbarism and then take things a step further, Baybars is right up there with Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon and so on as a first class butchering conqueror. He even looked mean.

Wasn't Saladin Kurdish? I found it funny that he was leading the Arabs in Civ IV.

 

[Venger]

That definition came out of webster dictionary. Check it yourself.
http://www.webster.com/dictionary/terror
See definition #4

Our founders were terrorist, they commited criminal (indeed traitorious) acts against the state, destroyed property (boston Tea party), hijacked state property (where did you think Henry Knox got his cannons?), and attacked the soldiers and officers of the British Empire. All of these acts were committed for a political purpose, the independance from the British Empire (politically motivated) if that's not terrorism then i don't know what is

You're right - you don't.

Idiots. This place is positively overpopulated with IDIOTS.

If you cannot see the difference between forming the Continental Army and engaging British Regulars, and dressing up as women and running with a body vest of explosives into a wedding, then for all of our sakes, go play in heavy traffic.

because that is exactly what the insurgency in Iraq is doing to our marines.

Engaging our marines is not terrorism. Planting bombs, booby traps, sniping, all are normal engagements of war. What is NOT is driving a car bomb next to a school bus and BLOWING IT UP. When you direct violence directly against a populace with the aim to effect a political, not military, outcome, you are committing terrorism. The DELIBERATE CALCULATED TARGETING OF INNOCENTS IS TERRORISM.

The Revolutionary War had NONE of that.

This is what happens when young idiots head off to college - they pick up a campus pamphlet, hear some student action group sloganeering, and they pick up these vaccuous notions. "George Washington was a terrorist" - that kind of idiocy can only emerge on a college campus. Or the internet...

Your statements are disgusting to both truth and reason.

There is one key difference between our founding fathers and Osama Bin Laden, our founding fathers were committing terrorist acts to build a brave new world;

Now you JUSTIFY terrorism? Does this line of thinking make you feel enlightened? Like you're in on a joke others don't get? Does this contrarian position make you feel avant garde in your thinking? Because it's buffoonery of the first order.

The Contintental Army DID NOT COMMIT TERRORIST ACTS.

You idiots read a very vague and poor definition, and try and wrap that other conflicts to create some sort of sicko moral equivalence - "unlawful use of violence" - do you even grasp what that means? What constituted "unlawful" in 1776 - you clowns are acting that it is BRITISH LAW that marks that boundary. Jeez... overrun...with...idiots...

a world where the people would govern themselves, a world where people can speak up against their government without fear of reprisals, a world where people can believe in their choice of religion. All of these things we hold so dear today did not exist in their time. What our founding fathers (and mothers) were fighting for that makes all the difference between our founding fathers and religious fundementalist. And that is why our founding fathers are held in such a high place in history even among other nations.

NO CLOWN, THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

Terrorism, TRUE terrorism, is NOT JUSTIFIABLE. PERIOD.

It is NOT okay to commit terrorist acts because the end result will be a "net good" - who the HELL has taught you morals? No one I would imagine...

Our founding fathers are not supermen, they were regular joes, some of them rich joes, but they were not perfect. How else can you explain how they were preaching freedom on one hand while at the same time own slaves? But that is what made our founding fathers so great, dispite their flaws, dispite their acts, they were able to make a great nation that holds true to its promise of life, liberty and happiness (even though it did take some time for everyone in the nation to reap those benefits).

Who said they were perfect? NOBODY, quit strawmanning in order to be able to reel your rickety rhetorical wagon back onto the road with "but oh how great the outcome of these flawed men".

Sorry for the rant, but i just hate how k-12 education in this country draws out our founding fathers as perfect people that can do no wrong; which in my opinion actually deminishes their greatness.

Let me guess - undergrad. I'd almost guarantee it.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Venger

 

[Venger]

That's a faulty assumption some here make. Mao and Stalin both left their countries greater than when they assumed office. Hitler ruined his country; on the greatness meter Hitler is not close to the other two.

Hitler ruled briefly, and ruinously for his own people and his neighbors. Hitler never makes an official Civ leaderhead release, ever. And good.

Venger

 

[Venger]

My opinion is that FROM THE BRITISH perspective, the American Founding Father were a combination of Traitors and Terrorists.

Traitors? Sure. Terrorists? You'll have to find support for that notion.

The dream of a land of liberty was probably not that different to a American fighting alongside Washington from the dream of eternal bliss with 70 virgins to Moslems fighting in Iraq currently.

Wait a minute - you are arguing that fighting for self-rule equates to martyrdom for a generic cause? Come on...

Thus, most Iraqis probably support some degree of resistance to the Americans who invaded their country for (from their perspective) no reason. The only reason that remains remotely valid of the many given by the Bush administration was to 'liberate' the Iraqi people, but that is on a par with the Spanish invading America in 1775 to free them from the British and I suspect would have been equally unwelcome.

Iraq's government has not requested us to leave. Despite being elected by the people.

And America was not the source of rule - Britain was. Spain was welcome to invade Britain to aid American independence... France managed (late) aid, are they also terrorists?

The fact that many innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed by car and suicide bombs is swamped in the mind of the Iraqis by the fact that more have died as a result of 'collateral damage' caused by the American military.

Source? Bring the Lancet and you'd better bring another bag for your head...

And show me some photos of the mass graves from US actions...

We define the Iraqi 'insurgents' as terrorists

No, which is why the word "insurgent" is used. You have in Iraq a mix of former Baathists and regime members, disaffected Sunni, and a mix of foreigners all battling the same enemy but with different strategies and goals.

but do not use the same term for our own actions despite the fact that they are more deadly.

We do NOT deliberately attack civilians. We take CARE to avoid attacking them. Our rules of engagement require us to take such care.

It is reasonable to argue that this is because the deaths caused by us were accidental, while the insurgents did it deliberately. However, to most Iraqis the Americans should not be there in the first place and are responsible for inspiring the insurgency.

Now you speak for the Iraqi's? They have elected leadership. Maybe they could speak for them, and not you?

In practice, most great leaders have been responsible for many deaths, especially since warfare has tended to elevate leaders into the 'great' category.

Mao and Stalin were actually pretty non-expansionist...

You just lost whatever little credibility that you might have maintained. STALIN WAS NON-EXPANSIONIST? Just who WAS it then who signed the von-Ribbentropp pact, splitting Poland between Germany and the Soviets? Just who WAS it that annexed the Baltic states? Just who was that man? And Finland, was that someone else, or was the Stalin? Oh, and occupying Hungary and the rest of Eastern Europe, that was someone else too, right?

The moonbats are on this thread like bugs to a lamp...

they generally tried to build buffer zones of client states, but rarely expanded beyond that.

My word LISTEN to the deferrence given to poor misunderstood Stalin, just seeking buffer states all the way to the Atlantic Ocean... but Washington was a terrorist!

Enough clowns in here to start a circus...

Venger

 

[Venger]

Tell the Native American that the "founders" were not terrorists. Vaccinating the "white" people from small pox and not the natives then giving the natives blankets containing the small pox sounds quite "terrorist" to me.

Huh? There were GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS to innoculate the Indians against it. This anecdotal bit, again from the grievance-peddlers, is hokum. But let's not let informative facts get in the way of a good smear!

Not to mention the near genocide of the native people in the process through other means. Sounds alot like what Hitler tried to do with the Jewish people - the difference is that the American/British won/conquered the natives but the Germans lost WW2.

Really? There sure are alot of Native Americans (who frankly, weren't Native either), around considering how long we've had to wipe them out...

Venger

 

[wenxue]

I can't help but feel a bit uneasy when I see Mao in the game. He was one of the worst monsters of the 20th century. The only reason the Chinese people revere him is that the dictatorship he set in place is still ruling and therefore many of them have been kept in the dark about the wicked things he did.

I think I would feel happier if they used only leaders from more than 150 years ago. I think the modern leaders, whose actions resonate so much more closely on the world we all live in, should be omitted.

 

[McManus]

No, which is why the word "insurgent" is used. You have in Iraq a mix of former Baathists and regime members, disaffected Sunni, and a mix of foreigners all battling the same enemy but with different strategies and goals.



We do NOT deliberately attack civilians. We take CARE to avoid attacking them. Our rules of engagement require us to take such care.



Now you speak for the Iraqi's? They have elected leadership. Maybe they could speak for them, and not you?



Venger

So you would consider any puppet government "the voice of the people?" Any government backed up by an invading force will rarely be democratically elected, because certain candidates are prohibited from taking part, and so on. Not saying that this is necessarily the case in iraq now, but still, you act as if the government of iraq was formed under 100% democratic circumstances. Definately not true. And about asking US troops to leave: what kind of idiots would do that? You've broken the country, left them defenceless, and you think they would ask you to leave if they wanted you to? Pfah! They want you out. They just can't afford that right now. Really, they have absolutely 0% choice in the matter. It's that or total anarchy.

And true, you may not be deliberately attacking civilians, but signs point that you really aren't avoiding attacking them either. That, or your military is full of ****-ups, who seem to attack randomly whatever.
As for following the rules of engagement, I wouldn't trust the american military machine to keep any deals. What with the geneva convention being toilet paper.

Also, I must add, in a less anti-american opinion: I think the rules of engagement can't possibly stand in a situation that the US is facing in Iraq. (Which is why I doubt they are following it to its full extent). I mean, how can you not target civilian targets when insurgents and what-not use them as bases of operation?

The rules of warfare need to be re-written. Again.

The only problem is, you can't write rules for war. Trying to adhere to rules just cripples you if others don't. Of course, if you have a significant advantage, maybe you can afford self-imposed restrictions. But don't go claiming that you do not attack civilians. You do. Or maybe bombing and attacking is a different thing to you guys?.

 

[Venger]

So you would consider any puppet government "the voice of the people?"

The Iraqi government was chosen AMONG candidate and parties of IRAQI'S - do you understand what a puppet government is?

Any government backed up by an invading force will rarely be democratically elected, because certain candidates are prohibited from taking part, and so on. Not saying that this is necessarily the case in iraq now,

But YOU are, directly or indirectly. Even opponents of the war RECOGNIZE the Iraqi government, as does the Arab League, the UN... this isn't a puppet regime by any sense of the word.

but still, you act as if the government of iraq was formed under 100% democratic circumstances. Definately not true. And about asking US troops to leave: what kind of idiots would do that?

The American left.

You've broken the country, left them defenceless, and you think they would ask you to leave if they wanted you to? Pfah! They want you out. They just can't afford that right now. Really, they have absolutely 0% choice in the matter. It's that or total anarchy.

Good, because the US wants out, Iraq wants us out, the only thing PREVENTING it is... you guessed it, insurgent Baathists and foreign terrorists.

And true, you may not be deliberately attacking civilians, but signs point that you really aren't avoiding attacking them either. That, or your military is full of ****-ups, who seem to attack randomly whatever.

That seems easy to say from your command chair of the 1st Recliner division.

As for following the rules of engagement, I wouldn't trust the american military machine to keep any deals. What with the geneva convention being toilet paper.

It's simple, really - the Geneva convention doesn't apply to people who don't wear uniforms, ever moreso to those who dress up like women to blow up kids getting candy from American troops.

Also, I must add, in a less anti-american opinion: I think the rules of engagement can't possibly stand in a situation that the US is facing in Iraq. (Which is why I doubt they are following it to its full extent). I mean, how can you not target civilian targets when insurgents and what-not use them as bases of operation?

Look - there is a difference between civilian casualties caused because you have to blow up a safehouse, or return fire at men shooting from behind a car, and those who USE people as shields - and a vastly greater difference between collateral civilian casualties from an airstrike designed to target a weapons store or suspected location of a high value target, and a strike designed to MAKE civilian casualties as the target.

The only problem is, you can't write rules for war. Trying to adhere to rules just cripples you if others don't. Of course, if you have a significant advantage, maybe you can afford self-imposed restrictions. But don't go claiming that you do not attack civilians. You do. Or maybe bombing and attacking is a different thing to you guys?.

This latter part I agree with - at least in total war. Total war has only the rules any side chooses to follow, for whatever reason they choose to follow them.

Venger

 

[McManus]

The Iraqi government was chosen AMONG candidate and parties of IRAQI'S - do you understand what a puppet government is?

Well, I'll give you that. Puppet government is kinda extreme. Now that I'm slightly cooler of head... But still, my point stands, the government is not 100% democratically elected, there were far too many circumstances that allowed a proper democratic election, which lead to the mass boycot of the election by the sunni's.

But YOU are, directly or indirectly. Even opponents of the war RECOGNIZE the Iraqi government, as does the Arab League, the UN... this isn't a puppet regime by any sense of the word.

The point is that there are huge amounts of iraqis who don't. If it would be only the insurgents, it would be a different matter, but we are talking about a substancial percentage of the populace.

Good, because the US wants out, Iraq wants us out, the only thing PREVENTING it is... you guessed it, insurgent Baathists and foreign terrorists.

Who would be half the weaker without some of the US' great deeds (prison scandals, the "reason" for the war).. If you guys had done a better job with a few key issues, like the justification of the war, maybe waiting for the UN to back you up, things would (with a 90% certainty) be a lot more quiet. It is, in essence, a stew the US cooked up.

That seems easy to say from your command chair of the 1st Recliner division.

Use your eyes. Read/watch news other than the ones syndicated in the states. And as for the comment, ever been in the military? You should try, see what they teach you there about civilians.

It's simple, really - the Geneva convention doesn't apply to people who don't wear uniforms, ever moreso to those who dress up like women to blow up kids getting candy from American troops.

But it does apply to civilians. It applies to all. Thats what the text itself says, and I admit, that even though the terrorists and/or insurgents are not doing anything acceptable, the prison scandals you have violate the geneva convention any way. Heres a snippet. (http://www.genevaconventions.org/)

[snippet]
Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples
[/endnsippet]

Look - there is a difference between civilian casualties caused because you have to blow up a safehouse, or return fire at men shooting from behind a car, and those who USE people as shields - and a vastly greater difference between collateral civilian casualties from an airstrike designed to target a weapons store or suspected location of a high value target, and a strike designed to MAKE civilian casualties as the target.

So bombing schools and hospitals and saying oops, we thought it was a base, is ok. I'm not saying that that the US strikes schools and hopsitals, but they sure as hell aren't making sure what they are bombing. In addition to taking absolutely no responsibility.

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

I miss Stalin.

He was the man in Civ1!!

I miss him too - with his moustache, his cigar, wicked grin and eyebrows, he completely stole the picture. He was an iconographical masterpiece!

I know Stalin led the Soviet Union, and in that sense not a russian idol today, but there's no reason to bow in to political correctness in a game like this. I know and love Stalin because I find it is tremendously fun to play against the bad guys of history. That always appealed to me.

Generally I don't get, why they put in leaders which noone knows or cares about. The game is as historically incorrect as it possibly can be, so why not put all the flavour possible into the leaders? Its the iconographical character of those leaders, that makes them fun to play or play against. You know what bastards they were historically, so its fun to oppose them and interact with them. To play against Stalin, Napoleaon, Mao, Ghandhi or Genghis Khan is much more fun than to play against Asoka, Masa Musa, or whoever chinese mogul they put in next. Ivan the Terrible would be also have been an interesting choice for the Russians, in that sense.

 

[Dikaioma]

I will parallel with our beloved game. The one part of the Civ series I feel they accurately reflected in history were the differences between governments for the people vs. governments for the elite and how they affected the player. Either your nation will prosper together and no one will have too much power over another, or your nation will prosper unevenly and wealth will be distributed in favor of the ruling elite. I think they have done the best in Civ 4 to show this stark contrast. In order for you as the leader to do anything for personal gain (like war for any other purpose but defense), you would have to switch to a tyrannical form of government to be the most successful. This is consistent throughout history.

The general (most effective) path to absolute power is republic (citizens protected, public or common law) then democracy (commercial/economy protected, private law becomes public law, like car insurance laws) then finally fascism/communism, or for ancient times more like a mob rule dictator/emperor (ruling party protected, they are above all laws). Domineering nations always seem to follow this model. Rome sure did.

Now, let's take current events. Our consitution is being steamed rolled over by our growing tyrannical federal government (see novel 1984 for a fictional, but yet interesting revelation on the matter). According to the patriot act, basically any pro-constitutional activists (right to bear arms which is currently in the works to be taken away) can be labeled a terrorists. This is where I derived that today our founding fathers COULD be labled as terrorists. No one wants a tyranical form of government, and few have the means to do anything about it (like the founding fathers). How do you think they had a means? They were educated, and they had the perfect staging ground: a new world. I am not saying they were the bad guys, and I didn't mean that when I said they could be labeled as terrorists, but it is always strange how throughout history the tables always get turned on the little freedom loving guy (you and me).

About this war we are fighting: it's a sham, and I feel extra comfortable saying this as I am in the military. I promised to protect the constitution (which is currently being raped), not a bunch of selfish rich bureaucrats on capitol hill. I don't think we should leave Iraq, it's too late now, we HAVE to fix it, but it's a shame we went in the first place. So what's next? Keep war weariness down. Build jails, enforce new laws, switch to a police state. This "war on terrorism" will never end. We aren't fighting a country, it's an ideal, and alot of it is blown out of proportion to scare the public. I can't find the name of the senator, but I am sure you can find the video somewhere on the internet. This senator said a day AFTER 9/11 that Bush will use this as a pretext for war against Iraq. Nazi Germany did the same thing blowing up their own buildings and blamed it on "terrorists" as a pretext for war. People start questioning, and the elite don't like that.

My comment about being ignorant of history is just that. History will always repeat itself until everyone is educated. There was a poll conducted this past year on the high school graduating class in America, and only 48% of the students could name who the axis powers were in world war II. You think they would even know what the war was about? Hell no. So this war to them is just like any war. "We will let the experts handle it, I've got more important things to do like get a social life." With this kind of thinking you might as well welcome Nazi Germany II: Amerika. Screw that. At the probable expense of my freedom? The federal government needs to go. Give me liberty or give me death, and the scarey part is our government wouldn't think twice about doing the latter...