Possible new leader for each civ

[Angst]

Meh not so great after Philip II, a series of weak kings or any that did anything special. So I suggest something before 1588

Of course, just so they get another one

 

[Zenon_pt]

I mean.... Lisbon was during the reign of D.Dinis,search it in History.

Colombo was Portuguese,he born in a small town called Cuba in the Alentejo,the name he gave to the first land he reach,which was the island Cuba.
Colombo was a "spy" of D.João II to put spain out of the portuguese way to India,in ancient documents D.João II refers Colombo as a "special friend" of Portugal before his arrival in spain.

But We don't know if Colombo was or wasn't Portuguese! That is one of the many places!
But on 'spy' !

BTW The D. Dinis well... cultural never, but comercial between Joao I and Manuel I, maybe!

 

[Luso]

LOL

How can Spain have another leader if Portugal only have one? and both was equal in History of the Age of Discoveries and after that.

 

[GeneralMatt]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Scots =/= Celts.

The Scottish culture of today is based a lot around the "Highlanderishness" right? And actually the Highlanders were mostly Norman lords who after the conquest moved up there.
Read that in How the Scots shaped the Modern World.

Interesting book..

 

[Antilogic]

Sun Yat-sen was a leading Chinese revolutionary in the early 1920's and instrumental in overthrowing the Qing. He ruled parts of China for a time, and was succeeded by Jiang upon his death in 1926? of skin cancer, I believe. Both Mao and Jiang claimed to be his true successor for political purposes. Sun himself espoused almost Nazi-like beliefs in race and racial struggle, but was that sort of republican that wanted "democracy" but not quite democracy, if you get my drift...

If anything, this only proves my point. Again, there is great support here (because others have mentioned WW2 leaders and given them support as well) for WW2-era and later leaders. Why?

<Please note this part is a rant not directed at any individual in particular but rather my constant frustration with leader threads on this board.>

Newsflash! There is more to history than the 20th century! I specifically read only subjects from before the 20th century because after putting up with WW2 culture poisoning and hero worship of lackluster individuals for too long, I had it. I decided to take a look around deeper in the human past for good picks, and you may be surprised to find there are several more names for the choosing who are as worthy or more!

 

[Angst]

LOL

How can Spain have another leader if Portugal only have one? and both was equal in History of the Age of Discoveries and after that.

Spain was more powerful, and in longer time. Portugal did have a larger trade capacity, but Spain's reign and power was longer and larger.

 

[jkp1187]

If anything, this only proves my point. Again, there is great support here (because others have mentioned WW2 leaders and given them support as well) for WW2-era and later leaders. Why?

<Please note this part is a rant not directed at any individual in particular but rather my constant frustration with leader threads on this board.>

Newsflash! There is more to history than the 20th century! I specifically read only subjects from before the 20th century because after putting up with WW2 culture poisoning and hero worship of lackluster individuals for too long, I had it. I decided to take a look around deeper in the human past for good picks, and you may be surprised to find there are several more names for the choosing who are as worthy or more!

Well, if we're talking about an American leader (which was one of the original questions earlier in the thread,) there really isn't much to go on beyond the past 200 years or so.

For Spain, well, per your earlier point, their current leader, Isabella, is hardly a 20th Century leader. Franco would certainly be an interesting contrast, as (I think) he should be more isolationist, and less aggressive in foreign affairs.

Sun Yat-Sen was hardly a lackluster leader, nor was he a WW2 leader.

I am a disappointed that you describe yourself a historian and yet actively avoid studying a specific era.... History is one big story, and to fully appreciate it, you need to see and understand what happened later as well as earlier.

 

[Blaarg]

One thing that has always bothered me, is that how come leaders like Mao and Stalin are allowed in the game when millions died under their rule, far more than were ever killed in the holocaust by nazi germany. Is it because they killed their own people and Hitler killed the neighbours? and somehow killing your own is acceptable? anyone follow my logic? Or maybe its because they "won", and therefore history was written by them rather than by the opposing side. who knows. not that i want hitler in the game. far from it. just some random thoughts.

Completely take all three's attrocities out of the picture and what do you?

Hitler lead his country into complete unconditional defeat and capitulation.

Stalin won the 'Great Patriotic War' as WWII is called in Russia. He also Industrialized Russia.

Mao lead the communist revolution in China which looks like is going to become the worlds strongest economy in less than 100 years after Mao took over.

Hitler had a huge impact on both Germany and the World, but as far as Germany is concerned the impact was negative.

 

[Indibil]

I'd take anything before Franco for Spain.

Heck I'd even take Philip V and gosh he really was a bad leader.

On a more serious note, Charles I or Phillip II seem to be the only reasonable choices for Spain.

Perhaps in a few years Felipe Gonzalez can reach that status, but the corruption of his bureaucrats at the end of his tenure really has taken the light from the fantastic job he did on modernizing Spain.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

If anything, this only proves my point. Again, there is great support here (because others have mentioned WW2 leaders and given them support as well) for WW2-era and later leaders. Why?

<Please note this part is a rant not directed at any individual in particular but rather my constant frustration with leader threads on this board.>

Newsflash! There is more to history than the 20th century! I specifically read only subjects from before the 20th century because after putting up with WW2 culture poisoning and hero worship of lackluster individuals for too long, I had it. I decided to take a look around deeper in the human past for good picks, and you may be surprised to find there are several more names for the choosing who are as worthy or more!

Oh, I agree. Sun is far down the list of candidates for a Chinese leader...after Jiang, for one, and he's WAY down. Kangxi, Taizong, a number of Han Emperors that my mind is fuzzy on right now, Empress Wu.....many more too.

Spain, I'd definitely go with a monarch. Spain was fairly inconsequential in more recent times outside of being an arena for the Nazis to do some flexing. Ditto with Portugal(minus the Nazis).

 

[Blaarg]

Franco would certainly be an interesting contrast, as (I think) he should be more isolationist, and less aggressive in foreign affairs.

I certainly agree that Spain in one of the civ's the desprately need a new leader. I would love to take full use of the conquistadors under different traits as Isabella's are kinda ho-hum.

However, Franco really makes no sense. He won no foreign wars. He isolated his country diplomatically and economiclly, during his reign Spain was one of the most backwards countries in Europe. Spain lost control of most of thier remaining colonies, including Moracco. And finally, he was pretty much hated by the people of Spain. I really don't understand why people keep bringing him up for Spain, it would be like putting Grant as a leader for the United States.

Better choices for Spain:

King Juan Carlos I - oversaw Spain's transistion into it's current Constitional Monarchy.

Charles V - King after Isabella's death and principle Monarch during the famed 'Siglo de Oro.' Although perhaps he's better suited for the HRE.

Phillip II - Another king during the 'Siglo de Oro,' won several military victories, paticularly over the French. However, he also lost the famed Spanish Armada to the English causing England to seize the title of the world's premier naval power from Spain.

Hernán Cortés - Not a monarch, but certainly an important person in Spain's history. Conqueror of the Aztecs.

 

[GenocideBringer]

Reagan: T. Roosevelt or Jefferson would be my choices, less recent

Reagan didn't do anything too amazing. He was one of many presidents who dealt with the Soviets. You can argue whether his influence was good or bad, but there really wasn't enough of it o be in sive.

T. Roosevelt is the same.

Jefferson had a large impact on the founding of the US, but not enough of one and certainly not much of an impact on the rest of the world, so he should not be in.

 

[Blaarg]

Reagan didn't do anything too amazing. He was one of many presidents who dealt with the Soviets. You can argue whether his influence was good or bad, but there really wasn't enough of it o be in sive.

T. Roosevelt is the same.

Jefferson had a large impact on the founding of the US, but not enough of one and certainly not much of an impact on the rest of the world, so he should not be in.

I strongly disagree with you about Teddy. He created the Panama Canal, cemented America's dominace over the western hemisphere. He was the first president to stand up to big business. He was the first to create national parks. Modernized America's Navy. Restored the balance of power in Washington in favor of the executive branch. (After Lincoln Presidents were a lapdog of Congress) Later he ran the most successful third party presidential campaign in our nation's history.

Teddy was one of our best presidents. Generally considered our 5th greatest president after Lincoln, Washington, FDR, and Jefferson.

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

Are T'ai Tsung and Taizong the same person?

 

[dragodon64]

Yes, one is with old characters and the other is with new ones

 

[dutchking]

I'd prefer Elvis Presley over Ronald Reagan.

I agree. I would've rather had Lenin over Stalin btw...even though Stalin "reigned" for much longer and held more power than Lenin ever did I actually think Lenin did more in a shorter time that was PROGRESSive. Besides that Stalin was a tad insane... Lenin seems like a better choice to me:
1. Not so freaking controversial that everyone says "Hilter should be in since we have Stalin and Mao!"
2. Smarter than Stalin.
3. Accomplished turning the world upside down in 10 years.
4. Ruled a state which he created.
The list goes on...
Anyone agree?

 

[Luso]

Spain was more powerful, and in longer time. Portugal did have a larger trade capacity, but Spain's reign and power was longer and larger.

You are confusing,Spain reign was longer,powerful and larger as the Portuguese,people make always the confusion about the non existence of spain before Portugal being known as a nation.Spain was formed as a nation itself after the recognizement existence of the nation Portugal.

 

[Angst]

You are confusing,Spain reign was longer,powerful and larger as the Portuguese,people make always the confusion about the non existence of spain before Portugal being known as a nation.Spain was formed as a nation itself after the recognizement existence of the nation Portugal.

Well, then it's Castile, if I'm correct. Castilla was still Spain, just not unified with Aragon and Naples. What Spain represents in the game is also Castilla.

 

[Angst]

I agree. I would've rather had Lenin over Stalin btw...even though Stalin "reigned" for much longer and held more power than Lenin ever did I actually think Lenin did more in a shorter time that was PROGRESSive. Besides that Stalin was a tad insane... Lenin seems like a better choice to me:
1. Not so freaking controversial that everyone says "Hilter should be in since we have Stalin and Mao!"
2. Smarter than Stalin.
3. Accomplished turning the world upside down in 10 years.
4. Ruled a state which he created.
The list goes on...
Anyone agree?

I agree completely, Lenin before Stalin.

 

[Luso]

Well, then it's Castile, if I'm correct. Castilla was still Spain, just not unified with Aragon and Naples. What Spain represents in the game is also Castilla.

No Castela was the kingdom of Castela,Spain was the unify kingdoms of Castela,Leão,Navarra and Aragão,and that happened after the Portugal existence.