scorch
Legalize Pot
i think hitler should have been the leader of germany
The leader of the russians shouldn't be Catherine, it should be Lenin!
- Thread starter {ChinO_MorenO}
- Start date
- Status
Furry Spatula
...
and
just so you know. Lenin wasn't much better than Stalin. THey were both monsters. Where do you draw the line though? When you kill over 500,000 are you realy better than someone who kills more than 1 million. I made up the Lenin number and the Stalin number but they were high. Heck Lenin started the Terror squads in RUssia, damn cant remeber the name of them Chefka or something like that
, and that was pretty much the beggining of the KGB. Lenin was brutal and just as bad as Stalin. He just didn't have enough of a chance to bring his kill tally up to Stalin's.Pretty much any dictator, Communist or Fascist, must be ruthless if he, or she, wishes to keep power. Thats the name of the game in dictatoraly run states. You get power by killing opposition, and you keep power by killing potential opposition.
so to recap. Stalin bad, Lenin Bad. Dictatorships, Good if you dont have a problem murdering thousands and thousands of people.
Greyhound
Chieftain
The count of deaths is not very useful for accepting a leader or not. Katherine is fine for Russia, as Peter would be, but under both´s rule peasants were starving to death.
Hitler should not be leader of Germany, although he is the most famous of us. He simply didn´t achieve anything politically, not to speak about culture.
Bismarck created (by different wars in which again thousands were killed) the German national state in its modern form, which still leaves its traces up to today. He is therefore much more important.
But generally the question is why Germany is in anyway. It did not exist until 1871, the medieval empire was not a centralized state or a common culture. Under Charles V. Germany was a part of the Spanish Empire, which is the reason why there never was German colonialism until the 1890´s, which wasn´t very successful and then partially led to World War I. So what´s the point about Germany (beside Hitler)?
Hitler should not be leader of Germany, although he is the most famous of us. He simply didn´t achieve anything politically, not to speak about culture.
Bismarck created (by different wars in which again thousands were killed) the German national state in its modern form, which still leaves its traces up to today. He is therefore much more important.
But generally the question is why Germany is in anyway. It did not exist until 1871, the medieval empire was not a centralized state or a common culture. Under Charles V. Germany was a part of the Spanish Empire, which is the reason why there never was German colonialism until the 1890´s, which wasn´t very successful and then partially led to World War I. So what´s the point about Germany (beside Hitler)?
Furry Spatula
...
ok i see what you mean its just that they are more recent and the deaths caused by them were intentional. katherine didn't intentionaly kill the peasants, she just didn't give a rats ass if they died. But anyways. I wasn't argueing that neither should have been in, but rather that both were just as horrible when it comes to murdering.
I think that people today are way to sensitive and politicaly correct. If something offends you, you dont look at it, read it, or listen to it. There we go problem solved. But wait, that would be a reasonable answer. Frankly i think That either Kaiser Wilhem or Fhuer Hitler would be good choices along with Bismark, as all three had big impacts, Bismark joining all the German Provinces, and the others causing WWI and WWII respectively. Apparently putting either of those two would insensitive to Jewish people and Vetrans.
And on Mao, Good job Sid, You put someone in there who is a murderer. Frankly yes he was important in China's history, You cannot deny it as he did lots to bring China where it is today. Yes probably there are other people from the Dynasties who had a big impact, but unfortunatly i am ignorant when it comes to the Chinese Monarchies.
And just a question, when were these war criminal acts of Mao's? I don't know too much about him. But the only wars i think he could have been a criminal in were the Korean war, and the Vietnam war i beleive he backing the vietnamese.
And to conclude this rant and bring it even further from the topic of the thread. I agree that Germany shouldn't even be in the game. THe same with the Americans, but of course the Americans have to be in because its an American creator and publisher, so i dont blame them its just a game not an educational tool. So realy i guess none of this post matters after stating that last sentence. Oh well
I think that people today are way to sensitive and politicaly correct. If something offends you, you dont look at it, read it, or listen to it. There we go problem solved. But wait, that would be a reasonable answer
. Frankly i think That either Kaiser Wilhem or Fhuer Hitler would be good choices along with Bismark, as all three had big impacts, Bismark joining all the German Provinces, and the others causing WWI and WWII respectively. Apparently putting either of those two would insensitive to Jewish people and Vetrans.And on Mao, Good job Sid, You put someone in there who is a murderer. Frankly yes he was important in China's history, You cannot deny it as he did lots to bring China where it is today. Yes probably there are other people from the Dynasties who had a big impact, but unfortunatly i am ignorant when it comes to the Chinese Monarchies.
And just a question, when were these war criminal acts of Mao's? I don't know too much about him. But the only wars i think he could have been a criminal in were the Korean war, and the Vietnam war i beleive he backing the vietnamese.
And to conclude this rant and bring it even further from the topic of the thread
. I agree that Germany shouldn't even be in the game. THe same with the Americans, but of course the Americans have to be in because its an American creator and publisher, so i dont blame them its just a game not an educational tool. So realy i guess none of this post matters after stating that last sentence. Oh wellThis thread is starting to get far afield.
If we want, we can accuse almost any major leader of murder, depending on what perspective you take. In the US, many Presidents allowed the system of slavery to continue (including Washington, Adams, Jefferson, etc.). They propegated a system that permitted legal killings.
As to the killings under Lenin and Stalin: Lenin simply didn't have much time to kill people and I believe the number was more in the thousands than the hundreds of thousands (it hadn't yet been systemetized). Remember, some deaths were probably in his name while he was sick.
Stalin, however, by the most conservative estimates, had more than 20,000,000 of his own countrymen killed (yes, you read that number right). That's about as many Soviets that died in WWII. And many of these killings are well documented (the purges). Others put the number anywhere up to 80,000,000. The only other leader I know of that killed so many innocents on such a scale was Hitler, though perhaps someone with knowledge of different eras and regions could give other analogies (Rwanda?).
Peter, in terms of radical changes and reform, was much more influential on Russia than Catherine was (incidentally, she was a Prussian princess if I remember corretly). But Catherine was probably chosen to have another female leader, and is still a fine pick in my opinion.
If Sid had chosen civs that existed way back then and today, I think Egypt is the only country that has existed so long as a culture (though they were part of other cultures for a while - ie: the Ottomans). Germany was Prussia, England was tribes (yes?), the Mayans are gones, etc. Maybe the Greeks too, though I don't know exactly how far back their history goes. Any others?
If we want, we can accuse almost any major leader of murder, depending on what perspective you take. In the US, many Presidents allowed the system of slavery to continue (including Washington, Adams, Jefferson, etc.). They propegated a system that permitted legal killings.
As to the killings under Lenin and Stalin: Lenin simply didn't have much time to kill people and I believe the number was more in the thousands than the hundreds of thousands (it hadn't yet been systemetized). Remember, some deaths were probably in his name while he was sick.
Stalin, however, by the most conservative estimates, had more than 20,000,000 of his own countrymen killed (yes, you read that number right). That's about as many Soviets that died in WWII. And many of these killings are well documented (the purges). Others put the number anywhere up to 80,000,000. The only other leader I know of that killed so many innocents on such a scale was Hitler, though perhaps someone with knowledge of different eras and regions could give other analogies (Rwanda?).
Peter, in terms of radical changes and reform, was much more influential on Russia than Catherine was (incidentally, she was a Prussian princess if I remember corretly). But Catherine was probably chosen to have another female leader, and is still a fine pick in my opinion.
If Sid had chosen civs that existed way back then and today, I think Egypt is the only country that has existed so long as a culture (though they were part of other cultures for a while - ie: the Ottomans). Germany was Prussia, England was tribes (yes?), the Mayans are gones, etc. Maybe the Greeks too, though I don't know exactly how far back their history goes. Any others?
hzm
Ecco the Dolphin
Ok, so I guess the obvious answer to these statements is that we should get the company to put in a drop down menu so we can select from a few leader heads and they could also do it so people could add new ones.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Originally posted by History Guy
I agree that Cleopatra really shouldn't be a Civ leader. If you want a female leader, Hatshepshut is the best there. Ramses II would be excellent, as would Tuthmosis III (who was a great military leader as well). Nefertiti on the other hand was Akhenaton's wife, but still she shouldn't be considered a Civ leader, as she was not the head of state.
I was just proposing her as Firaxis seems to have put her only to have more female leaders in the game. So I was proposing one that was at the peak of the Egypt, not at its sunset
And if my memory serves me well, Nefertiti, while "only" the spouse of the Pharaoh, had much influence and was an active ruler, in accord with her husband.
As great as Joan was, she should not be leader. More suitable, I think, would be Charlemange. He's my favorite anyway! Napoleon, on the other hand, was a great military man and all, but not a great leader.
In the times of Charlemagnes, France was still not exactly France, it was the Frankish empire. It's the origins of the country, but well Charlemagnes just does not seems french enough for me
And Napoléon, though he is most famous for his military victory, was both extremely charismatics (his soldiers were ready to follow him everywhere, and were extremely loyal to him), and was a GREAT civilian leader as well. He basically built the modern France, and most of the things he constructed are still standing.
She's not that bad, but the peak of english power was the Victorian era, where GB was the first world power by far (even farther than what USA is today when it comes to industry). So I think that she would be a better choice.
I was mixing with Alexander I, the one that finally vainquished Napoléon (ok, it was more the work of the winter than his) and expanded Russia to a surface that she is today far to reach.
About Queen Victoria, she "ruled" the golden age of the british,
but she did little about it. Remember, British kings and queens
didnt rule anything after the Glorious Revolution.
The golden age of Britain doesnt, IMO, has a great leader we
can associate with it. So I'd choose a personality of other time,
like Elizabeth (best choice for me), Henry VIII, even Oliver
Cromwell.
While I'm at it, let me choose other leaders:
- Persians : Cyrus would be great. Xerxes is ok, though.
- Romans : I'd put Augustus instead of Julius Caesar, but Julius
is ok.
- Chinese : Some emperor should be better. But Mao is ok. Or Confucius.
- Russians : Peter the Great or Stalin (even though he was a killer)
- Germans : Bismark, not doubt.
- French : Napoleon or Louis XIV. Joan of Arc didnt rule anything.
- Egyptians : Ramses. Cleopatra was greek!
- Americans : Roosevelt
I also think that instead of the Iroquois, the Incas should be in the game.
but she did little about it. Remember, British kings and queens
didnt rule anything after the Glorious Revolution.
The golden age of Britain doesnt, IMO, has a great leader we
can associate with it. So I'd choose a personality of other time,
like Elizabeth (best choice for me), Henry VIII, even Oliver
Cromwell.
While I'm at it, let me choose other leaders:
- Persians : Cyrus would be great. Xerxes is ok, though.
- Romans : I'd put Augustus instead of Julius Caesar, but Julius
is ok.
- Chinese : Some emperor should be better. But Mao is ok. Or Confucius.
- Russians : Peter the Great or Stalin (even though he was a killer)
- Germans : Bismark, not doubt.
- French : Napoleon or Louis XIV. Joan of Arc didnt rule anything.
- Egyptians : Ramses. Cleopatra was greek!
- Americans : Roosevelt
I also think that instead of the Iroquois, the Incas should be in the game.
The Art of War
[none]
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2002
- Messages
- 699
- Persians : Xerxes is fine. Not many people KNOW who Cyrus is.
- Romans : Caesar is good. Maybe rulers further on. . .or the first Pope. . .
- Chinese : Mao is fine. Confucious wasn't a ruler, was he? I'm not big on Chinese history
- Russians : Peter the Great or Stalin (even though he was a killer)
- Germans : Bismark. . .
- French : Napolean, maybe even Charles De Gaulle, I like him
- Egyptians : Ramses. Cleopatra was greek!
- Americans : Washington. C'mon! He was the first President, more than once! Lincoln is fine, though.
- Romans : Caesar is good. Maybe rulers further on. . .or the first Pope. . .
- Chinese : Mao is fine. Confucious wasn't a ruler, was he? I'm not big on Chinese history
- Russians : Peter the Great or Stalin (even though he was a killer)
- Germans : Bismark. . .
- French : Napolean, maybe even Charles De Gaulle, I like him
- Egyptians : Ramses. Cleopatra was greek!
- Americans : Washington. C'mon! He was the first President, more than once! Lincoln is fine, though.
Gholam
Chieftain
You think Peter I Romanov was some little saint angel? Think again... to my knowledge, over 500,000 peasants died on his building of St.Petersburg, yet the city population numbered no more than 20,000 by the end of his reign. He was just as ruthless as Stalin or Hitler, to the degree of using scorched earth tactics while warring on his own territory.
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
Lenin: A poor choice for Russian leader, really. Lenin established a system that was not wanted by the majority of Russians, caused a brutal civil war as a result, in which many Russians died, either as traitors to the revolution or through starvation. He snuffed out the light of infant democracy in Russia, and proceeded to establish an enviroment and system where Stalin would later flourish. All this was carried out in the name of "socialism", and "progress".
NEP started to gradually improve the situation somewhat near the end of his tenure, however. Lenin was essentially a fanatical, Robespierre character that generally caused more problems than anything else. He is only noteworthy as a leader because he was the man who established a political system that would influence people's lives the world over for nigh on three quarters of a century.
Even having him as a great leader is slightly morally questionable. Stalin even more so.
Stalin: This is even more offensive than Lenin. I'm not sure how one would measure 'greatness', however I'm sure Stalin wasn't it. The only 'great' thing he did was prepare The USSR for invasion by Germany, however it's highly arguable as to whether the route Stalin took to achieve this is the only path, and it could possibly have been done better.
He eliminated political opposition, imposed total totalitarian control over The USSR, used brutal methods to industrialise the country, was a disastorous military leader, was possibly the biggest political oppurtunist in history, murdered, brutalised and massacred the people of The USSR, and can be seen only as being, even by the most sympathetic interpretation as being deeply psychologically flawed.
The real reasond I object to these sorts of people, including Mao, Hitler etc being included is that the leaders are supposed to be somewhat symbolic of their respective national consciousnesses, and supposedly represent the best of a particular nation. Take Lincoln, for example. So unless you want to claim that all Germans are murdering anti-semites, or all Russians are rabid killers, I'd advise against their inclusion.
Stalin was a Georgian, so by your logic he also shouldn't be included.
How exactly can you be shocked and seemingly disgusted at this, whilst also advocating the inclusion of Hitler?
That's not entirely true. Russia wasn't wholly backward and was growing economically.
It was big, relatively powerful, however was loosing much of it's former prestige (The Russo-Japanese war was very humiliating) and also was also underdevoloped economically and socially compared to places like Britain, France, etc. Rather like it is today, actually.
Also, you totally ignore the methods that Lenin, and more particularly Stalin used to transform the country, which resulted in millions of deaths through brutality and starvation. Essentially you're saying that the ends justify the means.
P.S, can somebody delete my post below this one? Some bright spark has turned off the ability to delete your own posts.
NEP started to gradually improve the situation somewhat near the end of his tenure, however. Lenin was essentially a fanatical, Robespierre character that generally caused more problems than anything else. He is only noteworthy as a leader because he was the man who established a political system that would influence people's lives the world over for nigh on three quarters of a century.
Even having him as a great leader is slightly morally questionable. Stalin even more so.
Stalin: This is even more offensive than Lenin. I'm not sure how one would measure 'greatness', however I'm sure Stalin wasn't it. The only 'great' thing he did was prepare The USSR for invasion by Germany, however it's highly arguable as to whether the route Stalin took to achieve this is the only path, and it could possibly have been done better.
He eliminated political opposition, imposed total totalitarian control over The USSR, used brutal methods to industrialise the country, was a disastorous military leader, was possibly the biggest political oppurtunist in history, murdered, brutalised and massacred the people of The USSR, and can be seen only as being, even by the most sympathetic interpretation as being deeply psychologically flawed.
The real reasond I object to these sorts of people, including Mao, Hitler etc being included is that the leaders are supposed to be somewhat symbolic of their respective national consciousnesses, and supposedly represent the best of a particular nation. Take Lincoln, for example. So unless you want to claim that all Germans are murdering anti-semites, or all Russians are rabid killers, I'd advise against their inclusion.
Stalin was a Georgian, so by your logic he also shouldn't be included.
How exactly can you be shocked and seemingly disgusted at this, whilst also advocating the inclusion of Hitler?
That's not entirely true. Russia wasn't wholly backward and was growing economically.
It was big, relatively powerful, however was loosing much of it's former prestige (The Russo-Japanese war was very humiliating) and also was also underdevoloped economically and socially compared to places like Britain, France, etc. Rather like it is today, actually.
Also, you totally ignore the methods that Lenin, and more particularly Stalin used to transform the country, which resulted in millions of deaths through brutality and starvation. Essentially you're saying that the ends justify the means.
P.S, can somebody delete my post below this one? Some bright spark has turned off the ability to delete your own posts.
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
Stalin was Georgian, so by your logic he also shouldn't be included.
Originally posted by {ChinO_MorenO}
Do you guys agree with me?
No, If you compare, than youhave to name Stalin instead Lenin.
But the old Russian commutinty was foundet by Catherina.
(But then you would have to take for the Germans not Bismarck but Wilhelm (or, in the bad case: Hitler as couterpart to Stalin)
LordAzreal
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2002
- Messages
- 169
I agree with your opinion about Catherine. When I use or go against the Russians, I don't let petty superficiality get in the way. But I guess to the types who do, Firaxis would've done much better portraying her in her younger years when she really was a stunner. Besides, her younger years must be more important as that is when they did all the artworks of her (such as the picture of her in Civ II TOT).
As for your view as Napoleon being a bad choice for France, I disagree. I'm certain EVERYONE agrees that Joan of Arc shouldn't have been selected as the ruler of the French as she didn't rule anything. She simply lifted the spirits of the French soldiers and led them into a few victorious (and eventually disasterous) battles. I say Napoleon should be France's ruler as France was at its largest at the peak of Napoleon's reign. He was also able to retake France from an army garnered from a small island in the Mediterranean. The only reason he lost again was because of the weather.
Hitler for Germany... You're right to doubt that. He was a butcher. Besides, Bismarck is one of the few inspired, well researched choices for a ruler as he ensured Germany's unity. He created a great superpower that ploughed through the Industrial Age very quickly.
Mao for China. Agreed that he isn't deserving of it. If his reign had've continued any longer than it did, China would have absolutely no cultural identity left. The only reason those bone-brained Firaxians (not including Sid as he was the one who made these wonderous games possible) chose Mao was because of the sad sad fact that in the thousands of years China has survived, Mao Tse Tung is the only well-known ruler of China. In fact, if the Americans and Australians weren't so paranoid about the communists' southward expansion, even he wouldn't even be renowned as the butcher and destroyer of cultural identity that he was.
But not that all of this matters as it is only a game and it involved rewriting history rather than trying to follow it. I guess even butchers like Chairman Mao get their second chance at glory in this game. Too bad it isn't even for real.
hzm
Ecco the Dolphin
As for your view as Napoleon being a bad choice for France, I disagree. I'm certain EVERYONE agrees that Joan of Arc shouldn't have been selected as the ruler of the French as she didn't rule anything. She simply lifted the spirits of the French soldiers and led them into a few victorious (and eventually disasterous) battles. I say Napoleon should be France's ruler as France was at its largest at the peak of Napoleon's reign. He was also able to retake France from an army garnered from a small island in the Mediterranean. The only reason he lost again was because of the weather.
Well under Lenin and Stalin Russia became one of the 2 most powerful countries on earth.
Well under Lenin and Stalin Russia became one of the 2 most powerful countries on earth.
First a news: in Chinese version of Civ III the Chinese leader was changed to Li Shimin (the first emporer of Tang dynasty). I guess it has something to do with Taiwanese. Either they want to sell the version to Taiwan, or the translation was done by Taiwanese.
Then, when browsing Chinese webpages, I saw that many Chinese players were angry because Mao was not the leader! Go figure.
My point of view is that Mao is not that terrible. He was the first leader in a hundred years who kept China steady for decades. The steadiness itself saved millions of lives (think about what can bring to China by a major war). Although he was responsible for many deaths, he was also responsible for many survivals.
Then, when browsing Chinese webpages, I saw that many Chinese players were angry because Mao was not the leader! Go figure.
My point of view is that Mao is not that terrible. He was the first leader in a hundred years who kept China steady for decades. The steadiness itself saved millions of lives (think about what can bring to China by a major war). Although he was responsible for many deaths, he was also responsible for many survivals.
Dirk Aurel
Warlord
Xin Yu;
Well if he was responsible for many survivals,and this in the sense of his "good" human being,shouldn´t he have avoided deaths?I think you will agree that the stability you talk was only to stabalize his own rule.Definitely not to protect his people.
Yet a leader should act in the best interest of one´s people,even if he (or she) sees oneself as sole ruler of this nation.I´m aware that the least leaders acted selfless,if any,but if killing one´s own was on the political agenda,they just don´t have what it takes.
Otherwise you might aswell call this game Despots,skip all the civs and just refer to them as Mao´s crowd.
Am not sure on how they decided who should be leader or who should represent their countries.Some say political correct one´s this doesn´t really fit for Mao,guess he is the best known to the west.Personally I agree with what I read from cephyn (and some fr this thread),the leader should be a person who built the nation,
laid the foundations of the country for future greatness.China is getting there at the moment,but this isn´t exactly the peak of China´s might in history,and what´s interesting is that the more powerful it gets nowadays,the more it pulls out of Mao´s "foundations".
The same goes for Hitler and Stalin,both made their countries industrially strong,but also laid the path to destruction,while killing millions of their own,this can´t be in the interest of the nation.
Greyhound;
I don´t get it,this is the second time I´ve read your posts saying Germany shouldn´t be included.Not only do I think they have a right to be in there,but also the country represents the central European states,of which Charles V descended.Germany had an impact on history,(like it or not) maybe not always as a nation but as a people,even in times when they didn´t call themselves Germans.It was the Goths who occupied and settled in most of Europe after Romes decline,they appreciated the Roman culture and didn´t destroy it,as did the later Europeans,leading to the loss of knowledge fr Greece,Rome and so on.Many things had to be reinvented.
Even though it´s called the Frankish Empire,it was German (that´s why I don´t think Charlemagne should be French,nor German leader,both countries descend from this empire),it was more or less the first "civilized" empire after Rome.The Holy Roman Empire of German Nation followed, at a time when Europe was still pretty much in chaos,so they were there,just had noone to compete with, instead they competed with eachother, destroying Charlemagne´s, Charles the Great, Karl der Grosse, whatever you fancy, empire.Habsburg and the much later Charles V is just part of one of the tribes who voted the emperor for this nation.
Am not even going to write on the scientific and cultural influence it had over the last millenium,so there
Like I said allthough a great leader I wouldn´t want Charlemagne in the game, because either way it would upset the French or Germans.
Solution; maybe let them start together in the year 4000BC, with two settlers, splitting up later
I could live with Napoleon, since a lot of French society even today is still based on the Code Napoleon, which is quite impressing since it has survived five Republics and a few Monarchies.He didn´t treat the rest of conquered Europe so well,which doesn´t matter,he was French Emperor afterall.
I have this little idea,countries changed a lot over history which reflected in the personality of their leaders,maybe countries should have several leaders in course of a game,thereby changing their politics,like they have done in reality.This would enhance the game.Mao wouldn´t have come to power in a wealthy and powerful China,same goes for Lenin,Hitler etc. Should maybe be based on the situation in the game.Yet countries should be able to adjust their politics, not always staying on one line,most often destroying the civ by doing so in the game.
Well if he was responsible for many survivals,and this in the sense of his "good" human being,shouldn´t he have avoided deaths?I think you will agree that the stability you talk was only to stabalize his own rule.Definitely not to protect his people.
Yet a leader should act in the best interest of one´s people,even if he (or she) sees oneself as sole ruler of this nation.I´m aware that the least leaders acted selfless,if any,but if killing one´s own was on the political agenda,they just don´t have what it takes.
Otherwise you might aswell call this game Despots,skip all the civs and just refer to them as Mao´s crowd.
Am not sure on how they decided who should be leader or who should represent their countries.Some say political correct one´s this doesn´t really fit for Mao,guess he is the best known to the west.Personally I agree with what I read from cephyn (and some fr this thread),the leader should be a person who built the nation,
laid the foundations of the country for future greatness.China is getting there at the moment,but this isn´t exactly the peak of China´s might in history,and what´s interesting is that the more powerful it gets nowadays,the more it pulls out of Mao´s "foundations".
The same goes for Hitler and Stalin,both made their countries industrially strong,but also laid the path to destruction,while killing millions of their own,this can´t be in the interest of the nation.
Greyhound;
I don´t get it,this is the second time I´ve read your posts saying Germany shouldn´t be included.Not only do I think they have a right to be in there,but also the country represents the central European states,of which Charles V descended.Germany had an impact on history,(like it or not) maybe not always as a nation but as a people,even in times when they didn´t call themselves Germans.It was the Goths who occupied and settled in most of Europe after Romes decline,they appreciated the Roman culture and didn´t destroy it,as did the later Europeans,leading to the loss of knowledge fr Greece,Rome and so on.Many things had to be reinvented.
Even though it´s called the Frankish Empire,it was German (that´s why I don´t think Charlemagne should be French,nor German leader,both countries descend from this empire),it was more or less the first "civilized" empire after Rome.The Holy Roman Empire of German Nation followed, at a time when Europe was still pretty much in chaos,so they were there,just had noone to compete with, instead they competed with eachother, destroying Charlemagne´s, Charles the Great, Karl der Grosse, whatever you fancy, empire.Habsburg and the much later Charles V is just part of one of the tribes who voted the emperor for this nation.
Am not even going to write on the scientific and cultural influence it had over the last millenium,so there
Like I said allthough a great leader I wouldn´t want Charlemagne in the game, because either way it would upset the French or Germans.
Solution; maybe let them start together in the year 4000BC, with two settlers, splitting up later
I could live with Napoleon, since a lot of French society even today is still based on the Code Napoleon, which is quite impressing since it has survived five Republics and a few Monarchies.He didn´t treat the rest of conquered Europe so well,which doesn´t matter,he was French Emperor afterall.
I have this little idea,countries changed a lot over history which reflected in the personality of their leaders,maybe countries should have several leaders in course of a game,thereby changing their politics,like they have done in reality.This would enhance the game.Mao wouldn´t have come to power in a wealthy and powerful China,same goes for Lenin,Hitler etc. Should maybe be based on the situation in the game.Yet countries should be able to adjust their politics, not always staying on one line,most often destroying the civ by doing so in the game.
- Status
Similar threads
