What about Prophet Mohammed?

[Slyk]

I think the point of the leader choices is an individual that contributed to a major change in a country's stature, internally and internationally. Religously affiliated choices are just bad ones. Recent leaders are just as poor a choice. You need to look at persons who made a big impact in their peoples history in relative terms to the time in which they lived. As for the U.S. sub-debate, I agree with Washington, Lincoln, Teddie & Franklin D. Roosevelt as the most influencial characters in their periods of our history.

 

[apatheist]

Well there are many factors that go into any nations golden age. Those factors usually involved the decline and/or subjugation of its neighbors. If not for WW2 FDR could have been a one-term president as America struggled through the Great Depression. There's no proof that New Deal was going anywhere. However, the US rallied around FDR beacause of the turbulent events transpiring outside the country.

FDR was in his third term when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. He was in his second term when Germany invaded Poland.

So its true to point to FDR and WW2 and say that was the root cause for the US emergence. Yet at the time of his death the US was still mired in WW2.

FDR died on April 12, 1942. Germany was just a few weeks from surrender, with the end a foregone conclusion. Japan was practically reduced to the home islands, and the Manhattan Project was just a few months from its final atomic bomb test. The war was practically over.

The Marshall plan was a no brainer, that had to be done.

I like your optimism, but I believe it is incorrect. The Marshall Plan was a revolutionary. Look at what happened at the conclusion of previous wars. Look at the Treaty of Versailles. There was no thought given to reconstructing the enemy, it was all about punishment. Look at how the USSR dealt with the former German lands and conquests. The way the United States behaved with respect to Italy, Germany, and Japan is awe-inspiringly maganimous. Very, very smart, and very, very much in the benefit of the United States in the long run, but also completely different from how things had happened before. I think it seems like a no brainer to you because that's how most really good ideas appear in retrospect, but for its time, I think it was revolutionary.

With all that being said I see the Eisenhower / Kennedy span of the golden era as the time I would rather live in. That's really the whole point of the Golden Age, everybody looking back and saying how great things were.

I think in any era, you'll always find a substantial number of people who imagine some idyllic, wonderful past. I'm happy to live in a time where there isn't legal, institutionalized racism (well, sort of), where I have an amazing diversity of foods to eat, where I can meet all kinds of interesting people without leaving my neighborhood, where I don't have to fear polio, and where I don't wake up every day facing the specter of nuclear annihilation.

 

[doronron]

FDR died on April 12, 1944.

I believe you meant this?

I like your optimism, but I believe it is incorrect. The Marshall Plan was a revolutionary. Look at what happened at the conclusion of previous wars. Look at the Treaty of Versailles. There was no thought given to reconstructing the enemy, it was all about punishment. Look at how the USSR dealt with the former German lands and conquests. The way the United States behaved with respect to Italy, Germany, and Japan is awe-inspiringly maganimous. Very, very smart, and very, very much in the benefit of the United States in the long run, but also completely different from how things had happened before. I think it seems like a no brainer to you because that's how most really good ideas appear in retrospect, but for its time, I think it was revolutionary.

Certainly it had not been done before on such a scale (see Lincoln's plan for the South after the Civil War), but it wasn't quite as out of the blue as you make it seem. No one wanted another Versailles after this, and Versailles was still quite fresh in the minds of the leaders of the free world in '45. It would have lead to another Nazi Germany. They were keenly aware of this. Rebuilding was the only real option at this point. Rebuilding on the level of the Marshall Plan was especially necessary because the West knew where the next real threat lay -- Soviet Russia. The West could not afford something nasty taking root in the power vacuum created through the devestation of western Europe.

 

[Black Flag]

How does a thread about Mohammed turn into something about the US and their leaders?

 

[doronron]

FDR died on April 12, 1945.

I believe you meant this?

And I should have meant this!

 

[Justy]

How does a thread about Mohammed turn into something about the US and their leaders?

I would say it was because the consensus early on in thread was that it would be a terrible idea to depict Mohammed in a video game. Muslims won't accept any iconography, the last thing Firaxis needs is a jihad called against them.

So not wanting a jihad called against me I decided it was far more interesting to put on my "I like Ike" button.

 

[Justy]

FDR was in his third term when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. He was in his second term when Germany invaded Poland.

OK, I did get a little lazy on my first term analysis of his re-election. He certainly was a good politican. He was able to subvert the opposition that was building on the left. Yet I still don't place him as governing over a "golden age". The war in Europe certainly helped the U.S. economy rebound getting provisions and supplies to Europe before officially entering the war.

FDR died on April 12, 1942. Germany was just a few weeks from surrender, with the end a foregone conclusion. Japan was practically reduced to the home islands, and the Manhattan Project was just a few months from its final atomic bomb test. The war was practically over.

I agree here. I'm not disagreeing with his political adeptness. I am just saying that WW2 is largely responsible for his dominance over four consecutive terms. He would have stepped down after two following tradition. Harry Truman may or may not have run but that is all speculation.

I like your optimism, but I believe it is incorrect. The Marshall Plan was a revolutionary. Look at what happened at the conclusion of previous wars. Look at the Treaty of Versailles. There was no thought given to reconstructing the enemy, it was all about punishment. Look at how the USSR dealt with the former German lands and conquests. The way the United States behaved with respect to Italy, Germany, and Japan is awe-inspiringly maganimous. Very, very smart, and very, very much in the benefit of the United States in the long run, but also completely different from how things had happened before. I think it seems like a no brainer to you because that's how most really good ideas appear in retrospect, but for its time, I think it was revolutionary.

Thanks for the compliment, and I truly wish I were crediting human nobility and compasssion. However, I agree with what the previous poster said about the Marshall Plan not being a paradign shift in post-war policy. As soon as the war was over Washington knew something had to be done. The winter of 47 was bad for Europe. The opprotunity was ripe for a communist expansion. I don't want to get into a discussion about the pros and cons of "small C" communism. The Marshall Plan was more a response to "big C" communism than act of benevolence. Whatever the reasoning behind it, it was certainly a good and wise thing to be done.

I think in any era, you'll always find a substantial number of people who imagine some idyllic, wonderful past. I'm happy to live in a time where there isn't legal, institutionalized racism (well, sort of), where I have an amazing diversity of foods to eat, where I can meet all kinds of interesting people without leaving my neighborhood, where I don't have to fear polio, and where I don't wake up every day facing the specter of nuclear annihilation.

I agree completely here. Some might say the golden age is right now, others won't. However, in terms of a Civilization-style "Golden Age" I think that it was the 50's-60's and not the 40's. or before. The economy was vibrant, American culture (love it or hate it) flourished and it was a period of a relative peace. The US became a global superpower only to be opposed in strength by the Soviet Union in scope.

Now if FDR were a king and he reigned through WW2 and managed to live into the 50's then you would get no argument from me. Yet the credit, truly goes to WW2 for triggering the Golden Age status that the US found itself in.

Good discussion here.

Err... Mohammed... ah yes... I return you now to your regularly scheduled thread, already in-progress.

 

[Black Flag]

I would say it was because the consensus early on in thread was that it would be a terrible idea to depict Mohammed in a video game. Muslims won't accept any iconography, the last thing Firaxis needs is a jihad called against them.

So not wanting a jihad called against me I decided it was far more interesting to put on my "I like Ike" button.

Indeed.

 

[MasrTheEgyptian]

I've read some discussion about which leader should be in and which leader should be out. What about Prophet Mohammed? He united the Arab tribes and started one of the largest empires. Abu Bakr (CivIII) and Saladin (CivIV) were certainly a part of it but more on a "general" or military leader role. Mohammed wasn't just a religious leader but was involved in social and political aspects of life.

yes Muhhamad PBUH was a militaristic and diplomatic leader and yes he united the arabs but as for the empire the muslims empire included only arabia during his life which by the way was as long as 60 higri years (less normal christian years)
the biggest boost in the empire was actually during Omar Ibn Al-khattab's era the empire included Egypt,Lybia,Syria,Lebanon,palestine(israel) and most important persia
one more thing abu bakr's had no outer wars

but yet in the overall Muhammad PBUH is the best choice as a leader but as u were told in our muslims faith no photos of any prophet including jesus and moses can be generated or viewed

one more very important thing think about the things said to any leader by a furious AI I

 

[Obssesed Nuker]

I believe that putting Mohommed(SP?) in would wind up in having some BAD results. How bad? Well lets look at the movie called 'Mohommed: Prophet of God'. This movie was produced and released in the 1960s. Ive never seen it but I have read that you dont even see the SHADOW of the man the movie is named after. Yet what did it do? Riots were set off ALL across the Middle East(BTW:It was an Egyptian Movie), a bunch of Black(not trying to be rascist here, its just what I read) Muslims took several hostages in downtown Washington and demanded that the movie be removed from US theaters(it was), Western European countries never even put it in theaters in the FIRST place from fear of riots. So, if Mohommed was put in a video game as a sprite... it would be much worse.

 

[Praetorian]

I don't think that a picture of david or moses would be problematic since we are talking about a game and not real life