Petition:New leader for China~

[MrWhereItsAt]

In short, you, sir, are mentally challenged and ought to keep your ignorance to yourself.

This is awesome. Granted, the only Chinese history I know much about is the 1900-1940s period, and waay back with the Qin unification. But then I was always all about the conquest/conflict/exploration side of history, not so much the prosperity or the internal houses-type conflicts anyway.

Could you then please enlighten us - what makes him worthy of inclusion, if the common sources of info on the Net don't help us learn that? Perhaps someone will put him in a mod for BtS if he's up to scratch, and different enough from other leaders that someone wants to put him in.

 

[darko82]

Just give it a rest! WE have enough of leaderheads, and they can't simply put all of them. Besides, it seems to be late for such requests. You should have thought about it before the realise of BTS.

 

[Menzies]

You shouldn't be calling other people idiots if you really think that.


Well if you're talking about what Christians did, that's a different subject than what Christianity did.
On one hand, yeah, alot of Christians were great inventors and everything.
On the other hand, there are way, way more Christians than Jews, or any other religion in the Western World.
And finally, don't think that Christians built everything themselves, Pagans, Muslims and Jews layed all the groundwork, the Christians just worked off it.
And finally, you're a really cool guy, STFU/GTFO.

Moderator Action: Flaming, evading the autocensor, and ignoring Methos' warning.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

??? what...

I support Israel or the Hewbrew nation being in the game... I was just going off at someone for what they said about religion.

Also, it takes alot to make the Hagia Sofia from just its foundation.

 

[Yakk]

I think that the extra leaders for France/USA/England where added for WW2 mods.

Note that Japan and Germany didn't get a leader, probably because of the negative connotations of those leaders.

Mao was active during this period -- and it would be strange for China to have two leaders who where both active during the same period, wouldn't it?

 

[AIL]

Moderator Action: Drop the religious argueing, as it won't lead anywhere good (read: infractions). Keep it on track, guys.

I second that. When history tought us one thing, it is that religions are bad and cause more problems then they do good. This also is quite nicely reflected by how they are represented in civ 4. So just stop arguing about which god is better. They are mere products of imagination, just like a monster under your bed is.

 

[MisterBarca]

This is awesome. Granted, the only Chinese history I know much about is the 1900-1940s period, and waay back with the Qin unification. But then I was always all about the conquest/conflict/exploration side of history, not so much the prosperity or the internal houses-type conflicts anyway.

Could you then please enlighten us - what makes him worthy of inclusion, if the common sources of info on the Net don't help us learn that? Perhaps someone will put him in a mod for BtS if he's up to scratch, and different enough from other leaders that someone wants to put him in.

Your partial retraction already contains two obvious errors that further reveal your ignorance:

1. You imply that you only put emphasis on conqueror types, but Taizong was a conqueror king. Moreover, he was almost certainly the greatest military commander among the Chinese emperors. And whereas someone like Shi huang di was a great bureaucrat and organizer but not a field general, Taizong was brilliant military tactician.

2. You claim your brief perusal of Wikipedia did not reveal anything special about Taizong, but the first paragraph of Wikipedia's entry on Taizong says the following:

"He is typically considered one of the greatest, if not the greatest, emperor in all of Chinese history."

Did you even read the entry?

Regarding why Taizong was so special:

I don't want to give a history lesson to someone who obviously is not interested in learning, so let me brief:

Taizong was the founder of arguably the most powerful dynasty in Chinese history (officially his father Gaozu is considered the founder, but most later historians acknowledge that Taizong was the real founder and Gaozu a figurehead, because Taizong was too young to take the crown himself). He also presided over the absolute peak, the singular golden age of Chinese history, ruling as a model of a benevolent emperor. Finally, he was a near-invincible conqueror-king, more than doubling the Tang territory, if the vassal states he completely subjugated are included. His only military setback was against Koguryo (a Korean kingdom), and his setback is excused on the account of the fact that there he was confronted by the greatest Korean general, the iron-willed dictator Yeon Gaesomun--who was a prodigy of nature on his own right.

And Taizong achieved all this in the most difficult of circumstances, with the country being in chaos when he revolted from the Sui, and menaced on all directions by powerful neighbors.

These are among the many reasons why there is a near-universal onsensus among Chinese historians that Taizong was the greatest Chinese monarch of all time. The fact that you claim that he was not special without knowing anything about him says more about you than Taizong.

 

[MisterBarca]

Are you an aweful person, or just an idiot. Your insulting the religious beliefs of over half of Earth's population. Religion right or wrong was a necessary part of human developement and to alot of people means as much now as it did 1000 year ago, including the fanatical slaugter of innocent people based on their differing beliefs. Really, are you just an aweful person, did your parents force you to go to church while you were young, are you a Hindu, Buddist, Xenophobic Bigot... the list goes on and on of what you could be but what are you really. Maybe your one of these new age anti-racist religionist that most probably votes for Left wing parties because it makes you feel good despite the fact that a.) your probably well off, and b.) left wingers destroy nations economies and infrastructure. But you know. Know what, screw you, go to hell. Oh wait, you don't believe in anything (guessing), you probably call yourself an Atheist and believe that you're smarter than people who do believe in religions. You know, I'm sure it's great knowing that when you die, there will be nothing. Nothing you have done will matter in anyway, there is no reward, punishment, and most importantly there is nothing after death. Enjoy your oblivion. Just think, you will never think again, enjoy the sunshine... *stops the record playing in the background* this is pointless, there is no reason saying this to an idiot...

Oh, also as to what have Christians done apart from slaughter Muslims: CREATE THE MODERN WORLD!!! So either stop taking on Christianity and religions or just turn off your electricity, burn your Fibro-Joke of a house to the ground and go make a real house and live in that.

P.S: I'm not overly religious, just I have respect for something so great and important to the planet, unlike some people!

Moderator Action: Flaming, and ignoring an earlier warning.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

This is hilarity at its best. I think it's obvious that I was kidding. Did you not notice the smiley faces?

For your information, I am a fairly devout Catholic.

 

[snipafist]

I don't like either choice.

Sun Yat-Sen is an inflated figurehead of the abortive Republican period. He is widely seen by both the Chinese groups today (the communists on the mainland and the Taiwanese) as the precursor to their governmental systems, but he didn't do much of anything. He was gone when the revolution of 1911 happened. Further, he wasn't able to hold together a government and he wasn't alive when the Northern expedition happened. He thought big, but he didn't actually do much of anything. May as well ask for John Locke to be a figurehead for America or Britain.

Chiang Kai-Shek is one of, if not the, most foolish leaders in modern history. A complete tool who managed to take a preliminary reunification of China and turn it into a backwards, quasi-feudalistic state more obsessed with hunting down communists (who he had betrayed and broke from the United Front) than fighting the Japanese. His behavior in WW2 and the Civil War that followed was about as idiotic as one can get. He fought against reopening the Burma Road. He dragged his feet instead of fighting the Japanese (by war's end, 90% of the Japanese on mainland China were hunting the real threat - communist-supported guerrillas). He refused to liberalize his government to meaningfully include peasants rather than just extorting money from them through his industrialist and landlord backers. And all the while he kept whining for more US money which disappeared into the vaults of all of his advisors. His army was a joke. They barely even fought the communists when they showed up, preferring to surrender instead. Not that I blame them - they were underpaid and conscripted into armies, and became a source of income for their generals rather than true soldiers.

Chiang Kai-Shek's entire reign is a constant disaster. Why don't we include Nero as a leader for the Romans, while we're at it?

I'd support Taizong as a third choice. That or the Kangxi emperor.

 

[Radarmaker]

This thread is testament to the absolute inanity of Nationalism and religious intolerance. What could have been another harmless dime-a-dozen discussion about Chinese leaders has turned into a flame post for egoists to extend their pathetic bravado.

Get this sickening debacle off of these forums.

Moderator Action: Don't play mod, that's our job! Granted, I'm a step away from closing this thread. Keep it on topic and drop the religious arguments as you've already been told and she'll stay open!

 

[MisterBarca]

I don't like either choice.

Sun Yat-Sen is an inflated figurehead of the abortive Republican period. He is widely seen by both the Chinese groups today (the communists on the mainland and the Taiwanese) as the precursor to their governmental systems, but he didn't do much of anything. He was gone when the revolution of 1911 happened. Further, he wasn't able to hold together a government and he wasn't alive when the Northern expedition happened. He thought big, but he didn't actually do much of anything. May as well ask for John Locke to be a figurehead for America or Britain.

Chiang Kai-Shek is one of, if not the, most foolish leaders in modern history. A complete tool who managed to take a preliminary reunification of China and turn it into a backwards, quasi-feudalistic state more obsessed with hunting down communists (who he had betrayed and broke from the United Front) than fighting the Japanese. His behavior in WW2 and the Civil War that followed was about as idiotic as one can get. He fought against reopening the Burma Road. He dragged his feet instead of fighting the Japanese (by war's end, 90% of the Japanese on mainland China were hunting the real threat - communist-supported guerrillas). He refused to liberalize his government to meaningfully include peasants rather than just extorting money from them through his industrialist and landlord backers. And all the while he kept whining for more US money which disappeared into the vaults of all of his advisors. His army was a joke. They barely even fought the communists when they showed up, preferring to surrender instead. Not that I blame them - they were underpaid and conscripted into armies, and became a source of income for their generals rather than true soldiers.

Chiang Kai-Shek's entire reign is a constant disaster. Why don't we include Nero as a leader for the Romans, while we're at it?

I'd support Taizong as a third choice. That or the Kangxi emperor.

Agree with you for most part on Sun Yat Sen and Chiang kai-shek.

I think Taizong should've been the 1st choice in the first place. But then we are talking about the clowns at Firaxis, who managed to pick Wang Kon for Korea, when there are at least a dozen superior alternatives (including Yeon Gaesomun, whom I've mentioned in this thread).

 

[hgthechinese]

Sun Yat-Sen.....Taizong......Chiang kai-shek........
WOULD YOU PEOPLE STOP BUCHERING CHINESE NAMES?!

and, IMO as a chinese, the number of leaders really dont matter. esp. now we can have random leader-nation combo, china (like all other civs) have.....urgh.....idk, 50 leaders? if you want isbella rule over china for a game, go for it.

and this thread is definately politically polluted and some comments made earlier in the thread seems pretty offensive 2 me, and the petition, IMO, is so pointless. any mediator wanna delete this thread?

 

[MrWhereItsAt]

1. You imply that you only put emphasis on conqueror types, but Taizong was a conqueror king. Moreover, he was almost certainly the greatest military commander among the Chinese emperors. And whereas someone like Shi huang di was a great bureaucrat and organizer but not a field general, Taizong was brilliant military tactician.

I'm certain you will correct my misconceptions, but it seems to me that China was a well-established civilisation (if split by politics) by this time, and after a period of reunion, Taizong expanded it to a larger (the largest?) extent than previously. He played the diplomacy and politics game, and his generals were good (from what I read it didn't seem like he was so much the military planner), and he innovated with governmental policies. Is this a halfway reasonable summary?

2. You claim your brief perusal of Wikipedia did not reveal anything special about Taizong, but the first paragraph of Wikipedia's entry on Taizong says the following:

"He is typically considered one of the greatest, if not the greatest, emperor in all of Chinese history."

Did you even read the entry?

I read some of it - it was kinda more than I expected from a Wikipedia entry that isn't to do with Half Life or some pulp culture show. Complex too - many. many names and kingdoms are involved, often without introduction. That's why I get sick quickly of Medieval European history - too many Dukes, Counts, Princes and generally minor characters playing the marriage/politics game.

I don't want to give a history lesson to someone who obviously is not interested in learning

LOL - it's true, I'm still a little sick of learning after finally finishing at the start of the year. I generally have retained my interest in history over the years however.

So what would you say would be his Civ characteristics then? From all of that, what are his greatest contributions? The conquest or imperialism? Organisation, or culture? Maybe Charismatic, to account for his need to have someone there to point out his errors?

 

[Landstander]

And if you want a modern leader, even folks like Deng Xiaoping has done far more than Sun Yat-sen.

Sun Yat-sen is widely considered the greatest modern Chinese leader. Deng would be nice, but Sun Yat-sen beats him out with plenty of room to spare.

That says more about the contents of your brain than anything else.

Did saying that make you feel big?

 

[Azander]

Empress Wu...! Empress Wu..!

We need more drama queens!

 

[Infantry#14]

if there is no expansion...can someone make a mod? We should make a mod on the Chinese's 5000 years of history. That would be totally awesome!!

 

[Figaro]

People should work on adding new leaders for civs with only 1 before adding a third.

And the UK does not have 3 leaders... the UK isn't in the game. "England" has three leaders, two of whom were not rulers of England.

 

[meatwad4289]

I can't help feeling that while other superpowers like US, UK, Russia, France

France is not a super power. you just insulted all countries by even suggesting France to be powerful.

 

[Traitorfish]

This thread raises several questions, first among them being "Why hasn't Menzies been banned yet"? All he seems to do is flame, troll and act in a generally disruptive manner, which just ruins an otherwise civil board.

Anyway, I don't think China needs a third leader, at least not until Spain, Japan and Arabia have all been provided with one. Still, I'd quite happily have seen them leave Mao out of the game altogether, and replaced with another leader. For that matter, I could stand to see Qin gone as well- including a totalitarian, mass-murdering despot who actively sought to destroy his countries culture hardly seems like a good choice for a leader, so including two of them is just downright baffling.

People should work on adding new leaders for civs with only 1 before adding a third.

And the UK does not have 3 leaders... the UK isn't in the game. "England" has three leaders, two of whom were not rulers of England.

Well, they weren't rulers of England as such, but they ruled the are occupied by the former nation of England. Compared to the possibility of "Elizabeth of Britain", it's hardly that great an inaccuracy. A British civ would require the elimination of all pre-Union leaders. (Although, considering the reason that England is Civ-worthy is due to it's post-Union period, this may not be a terrible idea anyway.)

France is not a super power. you just insulted all countries by even suggesting France to be powerful.

France may not be a superpower, but it is a very influential nation. If you don't realise that, then you simply don't understand international politics.

 

[LightSpectra]

Leader's I'd like to see:

Trajan (Rome), Nebuchadnezzar II (Babylon), Taizong (China), Menelik II (Ethiopia), Akbar the Great (India), Abu Bakr and Harun al-Rashid (Arabia), Charles I (Spain), Timur (Mongolia), Meiji (Japan), and Ivan III the Great (Russia).

 

[Zhahz]

Use mods - you can have all the leaders you want.

I wish they'd make a seperate forum for these kinds of threads.