Ruler of England
- Thread starter ShiroKobbure
- Start date
Virote_Considon
The Great Dictator
Plotinus said he wanted Gladstone. He only said Attlee was a better PM than Churchill.
Although it is fair to say that British history should be considered a significant background to English history, British (Briton) historical events cannot be appropriated as "English" of themselves. In AD ~60 the concept of "England" wasn't even a figment of any one's imagination, let alone an actual political entity. When Boudicca was alive England did not exist, ergo she was not English.
Would it be acceptable for Italy to claim Archimedes as an Italian hero because he was born in Sicily?
I read "new Elizabeth" as the current monarch, but I think you may be right, Elizabeth I was intended.Virote_Considon said:EDIT: My bad, I read it as Elizabeth I. I think, however, your best arguament against her would be that she doesn't rule, the PM does.
Alfred is certainly more well known and his achievements were significant, but I credit Athelstan with the formation of a unified England. In modern terms Alfred started his days as a terrorist insurgent!Virote_Considon said:
AncientOne
Johnny Juwarra
same here..
Gen. Rommel
Wüstenfuchs
I would like to take back my vote for George III and submit Henry VIII as my vote. Before people jump down my throat about having been a bad leader, consider the fact that NO monarch had a clean slate. Even Elizabeth and Victoria have a tainted reputation when it comes to certain events within their lives, so to say Henry VIII is not leaderhead material is rediculous.
I think his unification of England and Wales (and the resulting "official" language of Wales being English and not Welsh thereafter) laid the foundation for a strengthened English state, one that would later expand to form the United Kingdom (not under Henry VIII of course). He also was the first king of England to officially call himself king of Ireland, the standard title having been lord of Ireland prior to this. This was due to the fact that the Irish regarded the King of England as an overlord ruling in the stead of the pope, who was the person they saw as their actual leader.
I also think his infamousy for marrying (and executing) many wives adds to make him more interesting than other possible leaderheads.
Furthermore, he was a poet, writer, artist, and great supporter of the sciences. He is known as the perfect example of a Renaissance man. He in fact, was the first English monarch to show interest towards the newly discovered American continent, an extremely important point in England's history.
One of the biggest effects of his reign was the founding of the Anglican church...the reason may have been egoistic (doing it only to get his first wife out of the way to marry another) but the fact stands that this had considerable impacts on England's future, changing the state church from a catholic to a protestant one.
Another extremely interesting fact is that he is also the father of the later famous Queen Elizabeth I (the one in the original Civ game). It would be extremely cool to see the two in a game together (though unhistorical).
Last aspect I want to mention is the fact that his persona and appearance make him an extremely interesting character, something that raises him above the rest. I think he would be a really good choice for England's new leaderhead, and he ACTUALLY has something going for him in terms of effects on his country...King Richard I, while extremely famous...is only famous for abandoning his country during the crusades (we Germans captured him on his way back to England hehe
) and putting them in great debt, with no overall success to show for it.
I hope you don't forget to note my change of vote Shiro, since I can't do it via the poll anymore.
EDIT: Haha, while I was writing this, it seems Civinator also suggested Henry VIII...no problem though, that makes 2 for good ole' Henry!!!
I think his unification of England and Wales (and the resulting "official" language of Wales being English and not Welsh thereafter) laid the foundation for a strengthened English state, one that would later expand to form the United Kingdom (not under Henry VIII of course). He also was the first king of England to officially call himself king of Ireland, the standard title having been lord of Ireland prior to this. This was due to the fact that the Irish regarded the King of England as an overlord ruling in the stead of the pope, who was the person they saw as their actual leader.
I also think his infamousy for marrying (and executing) many wives adds to make him more interesting than other possible leaderheads.
Furthermore, he was a poet, writer, artist, and great supporter of the sciences. He is known as the perfect example of a Renaissance man. He in fact, was the first English monarch to show interest towards the newly discovered American continent, an extremely important point in England's history.
One of the biggest effects of his reign was the founding of the Anglican church...the reason may have been egoistic (doing it only to get his first wife out of the way to marry another) but the fact stands that this had considerable impacts on England's future, changing the state church from a catholic to a protestant one.
Another extremely interesting fact is that he is also the father of the later famous Queen Elizabeth I (the one in the original Civ game). It would be extremely cool to see the two in a game together (though unhistorical).
Last aspect I want to mention is the fact that his persona and appearance make him an extremely interesting character, something that raises him above the rest. I think he would be a really good choice for England's new leaderhead, and he ACTUALLY has something going for him in terms of effects on his country...King Richard I, while extremely famous...is only famous for abandoning his country during the crusades (we Germans captured him on his way back to England hehe
) and putting them in great debt, with no overall success to show for it.I hope you don't forget to note my change of vote Shiro, since I can't do it via the poll anymore.
EDIT: Haha, while I was writing this, it seems Civinator also suggested Henry VIII...no problem though, that makes 2 for good ole' Henry!!!
I'd be happy to see an Attlee LH too though. But Gladstone was a far more interesting and charismatic figure, so I think he'd be more appropriate as a leaderhead, just as Henry VIII would be good because of his larger-than-life personality. Although it's hard to imagine someone less like Henry VIII than Gladstone.
Gen. Rommel
Wüstenfuchs
Goldflash
Civ III Modder, Civ VII Player
Oh Wait! I know! Make it me! I'm not English, but I have some English Ancestory. Oh, and I know not one but THREE English people! THREE! So therefore, I'm the best canidate.
TopGun
258 kills
oh, oh yeah. Can I change my vote from Churchill to Henry VIII?
Gen. Rommel
Wüstenfuchs
Virote_Considon
The Great Dictator
I would like to change my vote to Goldflash.
So is that an official vote for Henry VIII?! I would hope so...
No! However, I'd prefer Henry VIII to Churchill (even as a dinner companion).
rifleman
Varangian Guard
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2002
- Messages
- 415
I vote for Arthur...a good, real Arthur. One from the days of Sub-Roman Brittania.
We have more than enough heads from the romantic Middle Ages, and also from the Classical and Dark Ages - but nothing from the Sub-Roman or late antiquity.
If you want to do something really original, do this Arthur.
We have more than enough heads from the romantic Middle Ages, and also from the Classical and Dark Ages - but nothing from the Sub-Roman or late antiquity.
If you want to do something really original, do this Arthur.
But Arthur fought against the English. He wouldn't make much sense as an English leader. If you want a leader from the early Middle Ages, then Asclepius' suggestion of Athelstan would be better, or perhaps Alfred the Great, or Offa of Mercia.
rifleman
Varangian Guard
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2002
- Messages
- 415
OK, sure. And the decendants of Arthur and Boudicca were enslaved and driven ever westward by the Anglo-Saxons.
But come on, Arthur may be British, but we're looking for a timeless leader. Just as Brittania herself and Boudicca symbolize England and her people, so does Arthur.
But come on, Arthur may be British, but we're looking for a timeless leader. Just as Brittania herself and Boudicca symbolize England and her people, so does Arthur.
No, really, if Arthur symbolises anything, it's Britain, not England. Britannia obviously symbolises Britain rather than England. And I'm not sure that Boudicca symbolises anything in particular, since unlike the other two, she was a real person...
Similar threads
