Modern-Day Enhancement Mod:

Breaker Morant - Australian soldier who was shot after a court martial found him guilty of shooting prisoners of war. Not really a "great military leader".
Ned Kelly - Bush Ranger. Irish immigrant who murdered police and others, robbed and stole for selfish reasons, and was eventually captured after a gun battle with police. He was hung. Not really a "great military leader" either.

I disagree with both of these, they are both national heroes! Especially Ned Kelly! He hated the police because of their oppression of the Irish people, and this is largely what he fought against and the reason why he killed police. Breaker Morant was a great man, and also a national hero. These are both entirely suitable, as is weary dunlop! Shame on you for saying otherwise.
 
Commissar_Yari said:
I disagree with both of these, they are both national heroes! Especially Ned Kelly! He hated the police because of their oppression of the Irish people, and this is largely what he fought against and the reason why he killed police. Breaker Morant was a great man, and also a national hero. These are both entirely suitable, as is weary dunlop! Shame on you for saying otherwise.

WHAT! This is a ridiculous assertion. Ned Kelly is at best a folk hero, at worst a robber, thief and murderer. He is not a military commander. Military commanders command armies/units, not bands of thugs. I devoted a good deal of my life to serving the people of my community by arresting robbers, thieves and murderers, and in defending the nation I live in. To have someone claim that someone like that, people I deal with, should be considered a “great military leader” is insulting, not only to the law enforcement community, but also to the military community. He was no general, he was a self-interested thug. The argument of “one man’s revolutionary is another man’s terrorist” does not wash with me.

As far as Breaker Morant goes, he led a group of soldiers, but failed to show leadership when it mattered. At best he also is no more than a folk hero, and at worst a murderer who committed war crimes. As one who lived in a green uniform I would not even consider him a man worth spitting on, let alone follow into battle. He is no great military leader. He didn’t have the courage to say “No” to the British and shot prisoners of war. Perhaps it is harsh to judge him by today’s standards, but there is still the basics of humanity that should be complied with. If he had been under my command I would have had him court-martialled as well. Again, he was no general, he was a self-interested thug.

Weary Dunlop was a surgeon and humanitarian, as well as a soldier. Having said that, he was not a commander, and as far as I can see, does not meet the criteria of a great military leader. Great military leaders are people like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, the Duke of Wellington, Genghis Khan, Joan of Arc, Zhukov etc. in other words, commanders who lead soldiers in successful campaigns and commanded armies to victory. Being a “national hero” does not qualify someone as a great military commander.

I have no shame for saying these things. Friends of mine have almost died fighting against people like those above, people who were villains, but regarded wrongly as heroes. Their stories might be tragic, and there may injustices, but we should never let sympathy get in the way of facts and reality. The shame is all theirs.
 
There was some discussion about the modern name of the English civilisation, and a lot of the information was wrong (and some was even ridiculous). :p I've studied a fair amount of history, so here are some explanations.

There are two main islands, and a lot of small ones, that make up the British Isles. The main islands are:

1 Great Britain
2 Ireland

The name Great Britain comes from the Roman name of the island, and has nothing to do with the British Empire. The Romans called the island 'Britannia', but there was a lot of migration between Britannia and Armorica in north-west Gaul, especially after the fall of the Roman Empire. Because of this migration, 'Britannia' eventually came to be associated with both places. They were therefore distinguished by calling the island 'Britannia Major' and Armorica, which was much smaller, 'Britannia Minor'. These names mean 'big Britain' and 'little Britain' in English, which is exactly what 'Great Britain' and 'Brittany' mean too.

'Great Britain' and 'British' were first used officially after the English and Scottish parliaments voted to unite England and Scotland in 1707. A new name was needed since the new Kingdom was neither England nor Scotland, so the name of the island was used. The official name was 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain', and 'Great Britain' was the normal short form.

When the Irish parliament voted to join with Great Britain in 1800, 'Great Britain' ceased to be an accurate short name for the combined kingdom. This is still true, because Northern Ireland voted against leaving the UK when the rest of the island did. The normal short form of 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' (or 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' in the past) is therefore the 'United Kingdom', and not 'Great Britain' or 'Britain', but 'Britain' is better than 'Great Britain', since it isn't the name of one of the islands.

'British' can still be used to mean the people of the island of Great Britain, but the normal usage means the people of the United Kingdom, including Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the smaller islands. This refers to the geographical connexion between the British Isles and the United Kingdom, i.e. that all of the islands that make up the UK lie within the British Isles.

Based on the above, the countries/nationalities of the British Isles should be:

1 The United Kingdom / British
2 Ireland / Irish
 
is there any way you CAN make this a Vanilla civ 3 mod? Sounds like a lot of fun but if not then oh well
 
Romania's traits and UU are identical to the Byzantine traits and UU. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom