Whatever. I'm not getting into a flame war, so this is my last response to you on this matter. It's culture poisoning at its worst when the only war that people seem to pay attention to anymore is the current conflict in the world theater and WW2. Look at all the games, look at all the movies, etc. It's also quite annoying when people really don't understand the war they supposedly espouse (I was talking with a High Schooler when tutoring and heard the inane statement that we were allied with the Germans and fighting the Soviets in WW2). I insist on bringing up older examples as a foil, so that there is some actual discussion instead of latching onto a popular name from the 1930's and 1940's, or any other particular decade. If you call that arrogance and an attitude that indicates "people he feels are beneath him", then fine. I can't find in my words where I expressed so directly this hubris of which you speak and made explicit mention of, but go on and quote me on it. See if I care for your Argumentum ad Hominem attacks.
My only point is that everybody on this forum would do well to read a history book or watch a History Channel special on something that isn't on the 20th century. Call it arrogance if you want. I call it a plea for sanity and a prayer for some self-education.
It's convenient you mention two leaders in a dying breed of Firaxis leaderheads. You could have mentioned how many more in Civ3 that were "unworthy"? I've posted before and again that Victoria simply represents the height of British power in the 19th century, because the actual policies were determined alternately by Gladstone and Disraeli, two highly influential and politically opposed British PMs. She didn't wield too much power, but are you going to pick between Gladstone and Disraeli? Or put both in and remove Churchill? That's a good discussion for a thread in itself.
Also, I am hesitant to point out a logical fallacy in your argument because you might claim I'm insulting you or being arrogant or something silly like that), but will do so anyway, because I can't let this stand. Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right. Just because there's a poor choice for an Aztec leader doesn't mean we have to compound the problem by adding poor choices for Spain. Same goes for any two Civs in the game. Try again.
Also, did you not read the above post on Franco? Blaarg has brought up some good points: no wars won, no great buildings, no golden age, the Spanish seem to think its a time when they fell backwards and not forwards...all you've posted is a nebulous statement that, "for good or ill", Spain today was influenced by Franco. That is true of every leader, as every leader has had some effect, positive or negative, big or small, on the people they rule.
At least the first one to express in terms any builder can understand...what was the quote, "Build, build, build! I'm addicted to building new and better!" or something like that?
lol
), Alexius I Commenus
did i miss antyhing...
