Either Pitt would probably be safe I imagine. Same thing for Walpole. Enough time has passed that their shouldn't be too much controversy.
The only real controversy would be that Pitt the younger was most likely gay and/or asexual and really that had nothing to do with his accomplishments as PM.
Either Pitt would probably be safe I imagine. Same thing for Walpole. Enough time has passed that their shouldn't be too much controversy.
The only real controversy would be that Pitt the younger was most likely gay and/or asexual and really that had nothing to do with his accomplishments as PM.
I wonder where a leader becomes too obscure to include? Pitt is a memorable PM in the UK but he's not exactly a rock star like Roosevelt or Churchill. I'm struggling to think what his special ability would be?
I wonder where a leader becomes too obscure to include? Pitt is a memorable PM in the UK but he's not exactly a rock star like Roosevelt or Churchill. I'm struggling to think what his special ability would be?
Not many people knew who Hojo Tokimune was but after some research everyone agreed he was a great leader choice for Japan. Obscure doesn't mean bad. The Pitts do have some name recognition in the US, as many towns and cities are named after them. Probably the same in Canada. Hell, Disreali and Gladestone have name recognition thanks to Assassins Creed and Family Guy.
Is that really the only reason people know of them? I would think they (and perhaps Pitts the Elder) would be among the more familiar non-recent PMs after Churchill outside of the UK, at least to anyone who knows anything about UK history.
I don't know how familiar most foreigners are with British history but most British people can't name a PM before Thatcher except Churchill. Civ players are probably more knowledgeable than the average person on history but how much more?
I think any alternate leaders should bring out a different aspect of the civ they are leading.
Pitt the Elder would be too similar to Victoria since he was PM during the Seven Years War which was fought across 3 continents.
Pitt the Younger might be interesting. Naval power, finance and alliances.
Is that really the only reason people know of them? I would think they (and perhaps Pitts the Elder) would be among the more familiar non-recent PMs after Churchill outside of the UK, at least to anyone who knows anything about UK history.
Yes. You can add Lord Palmerston due to the classic Simpson episode from the early 90s with all the baseball all-stars in it. Barney and Wade Boggs get into an argument about the greatest British PM in it.
British history doesn't get a lot of play in the US other than the colonial era, revolutionary war and, WWII. It doesn't go into depth about the actual government in London though. You need college level courses for that.
British history doesn't get a lot of play in the US other than the colonial era, revolutionary war and, WWII. It doesn't go into depth about the actual government in London though. You need college level courses for that.
As an American with a history minor, I'm well aware, though I had an above average history education in primary: I had to pursue Asian history on my own, but Western Europe was pretty well covered up through WW2.
As an American with a history minor, I'm well aware, though I had an above average history education in primary: I had to pursue Asian history on my own, but Western Europe was pretty well covered up through WW2.
History is very squeezed in our current curriculum although it is compulsory up to 14.. Add in that pupils are normally taught history as topics nowadays and you get situations like the quiz show I saw where 2 graduates (thankfully not history graduates) thought the Battle of Waterloo was fought in England.
History is very squeezed in our current curriculum although it is compulsory up to 14.. Add in that pupils are normally taught history as topics nowadays and you get situations like the quiz show I saw where 2 graduates (thankfully not history graduates) thought the Battle of Waterloo was fought in England.
I think history is required all the way through in the US (correct me if I'm wrong--I was homeschooled and used private school curriculum), but even in the better curricula it tends to give a shallow cursory overview of anything that's not directly related to the United States. I recall my high school world history class covering everything from Sumer through Persia in a single chapter, followed by several chapters on Greece, followed by several chapters on Rome, followed by a chapter on the entire Middle Ages, followed by several chapters on the Reformation, and from there on it was basically "English history with a focus on how the English ended up in America, the Promised Land."
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
