Which leader shouldn't be in, in favor for a Japanese and Spanish one?

[cybrxkhan]

Wow i sound like an american.

anohow, on Washington, even though i may not like America as much as people think i should, really, Washington may have been in real life the most dirtbag cheap bad corrupt loser or whatever, but no one cares, because he has come to pretty much be thought of as the father of America. and thats enough for him to be a leader.

 

[scy12]

Would you have the audacity and courage to defy the world's greatest military and continental power at the time, even after being defeated by it and driven into hiding? If you could've assumed absolute power and nothing was stopping you and people even encouraged you to assume the power, would you surrender that power to pave a future road that still exists to this day?

I think it's easy to sit at your computer desk and say "yes, I would've done like Washington did". For every Washington there are a millions of Louis'.

Edit: Oh yeah, and I agree with your opinion of Roosevelt; easily one of the greatest leaders among the world in the past 100 years. America has had some good leaders (and abysmal ones, too) which is why I have a hard time choosing who should be added in Civ. If there were ever a 4th American leader it would definitely be Teddy Roosevelt. His traits would be a no-brainer to me: imperialistic and charismatic, though organized would fit well, too.

I am a later 20rth and 21 century civilian that under no conditions ever had battle experiences or the abilities or training to lead as a general . But i never claimed i would be better than Washington .
What i claimed was that other average Generals would have the courage to achieve what Washington did.

I think it is easy to sit on your computer and try to distort reality but alas your effort of getting this personal is without an outcome.

But really , where did you get that idea ?

 

[Tercio]

Washington may have been in real life the most dirtbag cheap bad corrupt loser or whatever, but no one cares, because he has come to pretty much be thought of as the father of America. and thats enough for him to be a leader.

That's definitely true. For all we know, Le Loi could have been a douche bag jerk who hated pho! lol

What i claimed was that other average Generals would have the courage to achieve what Washington did.

There were plenty of "average generals" on both sides of the conflict that achieved nothing of the kind. Horatio Gates, anyone? And besides, the "General" is only half of why he's a perfect leader for Civ IV, there's also "Mr. President" which I think has been talked about by several people already.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

So what? There were plenty of other generals available during the Punic Wars; should we throw out Hannibal? Someone else might've united the Mongols? Shall we get rid of Genghis Khan? What about Shaka, Augustus, Hammurabi? Somebody had to be the first.

 

[TheLastOne36]

So what? There were plenty of other generals available during the Punic Wars; should we throw out Hannibal? Someone else might've united the Mongols? Shall we get rid of Genghis Khan? What about Shaka, Augustus, Hammurabi? Somebody had to be the first.

Damn right. QFT

 

[scy12]

So what? There were plenty of other generals available during the Punic Wars; should we throw out Hannibal? Someone else might've united the Mongols? Shall we get rid of Genghis Khan? What about Shaka, Augustus, Hammurabi? Somebody had to be the first.

Judge on their abilities and what they accomplished . Then at how likely it would be for that to be accomplished at the same period by a different person. If what they accomplished is something that would require great abilities , political analysis of the future and other qualities that others didn't possess then they are Great Leaders . IF what a Leader accomplished is due to the circumstances , and other average Leaders could accomplish that without those abilities then it is a different case. I understand some Persons do have a symbolic meaning but i choose not to care about it.

 

[cybrxkhan]

For all we know, Le Loi could have been a douche bag jerk who hated pho! lol

he was a fisherman. maybe he liked Fish Pho.

 

[Thedrin]

Armand Jean du Plessis Cardinal de Richelieu.

If all civs and leaders were completely reworked he would be my second choice for a French leader (after Charlemagne).

 

[methane]

I disagree . Roosevelt is the best leader of the American nation and one of the best leaders of the twentieth century. Just because Washington is the "Father" ,or an example (Mythical character) , it doesn't mean anything to me. In my opinion other leaders could have done likewise or better as Washington .

In terms of his generalship, you must remember, the US revolution wasn't inevitable, at least not at the time and place it happened. It is quite possible that the continental army could have folded in the early years of the war, and the colonies, in whole or in part, would have accepted a peace overture from Britain. Remember, even a few years before the Declaration of Independence, most people weren't looking for outright independence, and there were many supporters of the crown well into the war.

In terms of government, you forget how new America was. They looked at themselves as an offspring as Europe, but they had no real example in Europe for a Presidential form of government. They talked of ancient Rome, but really they had no examples. After revolting from the British monarch, people were suggesting governments with 3 presidents, governments without an executive, and throwing other ideas out there. Meanwhile, some conservatives were talking about making Washington king, mistrustful of any system that would require changing your head of government every few years. The fact that Washington wanted a republic shot down any thoughts of him being named king; the fact that he would be the first president let people have confidence in creating the office of President with as much power as it did have.

Roosevelt couldn't exist without Washington; there would never have been an office with that much power created if there hadn't been a Washington at the start.

A significant number of democracies today around the world have a Presidential system of government. They're all offspring of the American system designed for Washington; Washington's actions (setting up a cabinet, stepping down after 2 terms to keep it from being a permanent office, etc.) took that theoretical system and showed how to make it work in practice. Sure, it's been adapted over time both in the US and overseas, but it's still very recognizeable. In no way was it preordained.

This isn't myth (although Washington had more than his share of myths created about him). Washington isn't great because he was extroardinarily brilliant or that because he had a perfect character. But he was great because he was someone people could believe in, because he always was keenly aware that he was setting an example that generations would look to, and because he turned down more power than he could have taken.

Without Washington the US might have gotten independence, but the government that was eventually formed would have likely been quite different. It's quite possible that no strong central government would have ever emerged, and we would have been left with a loose confederation of individual states acting as separate countries.

 

[Tercio]

IF what a Leader accomplished is due to the circumstances , and other average Leaders could accomplish that without those abilities then it is a different case. I understand some Persons do have a symbolic meaning but i choose not to care about it.

Well that pretty much rules out everyone. Including FDR, your greatest leader of all. It's true that historical greatness is often largely a case of "right place at the right time" but at the same time the individual's reaction to the circumstances in which he's placed is what truly makes him great. For example, Washington could have been like Gates, charged Howe head-on and gotten the Continental Army completely obliterated at Brooklyn Heights and surrendered his whole force. That would change some things, wouldn't it? FDR could have come to power and decided that an American Great Leap Forward was the answer to the Depression instead of the "middle path" of the New Deal. That would have changed some things too.

 

[scy12]

In terms of his generalship, you must remember, the US revolution wasn't inevitable, at least not at the time and place it happened. It is quite possible that the continental army could have folded in the early years of the war, and the colonies, in whole or in part, would have accepted a peace overture from Britain. Remember, even a few years before the Declaration of Independence, most people weren't looking for outright independence, and there were many supporters of the crown well into the war.

In terms of government, you forget how new America was. They looked at themselves as an offspring as Europe, but they had no real example in Europe for a Presidential form of government. They talked of ancient Rome, but really they had no examples. After revolting from the British monarch, people were suggesting governments with 3 presidents, governments without an executive, and throwing other ideas out there. Meanwhile, some conservatives were talking about making Washington king, mistrustful of any system that would require changing your head of government every few years. The fact that Washington wanted a republic shot down any thoughts of him being named king; the fact that he would be the first president let people have confidence in creating the office of President with as much power as it did have.

Roosevelt couldn't exist without Washington; there would never have been an office with that much power created if there hadn't been a Washington at the start.

A significant number of democracies today around the world have a Presidential system of government. They're all offspring of the American system designed for Washington; Washington's actions (setting up a cabinet, stepping down after 2 terms to keep it from being a permanent office, etc.) took that theoretical system showed how to make it work in practice. Sure, it's been adapted over time both in the US and overseas, but it's still very recognizeable. In no way was it preordained.

This isn't myth (although Washington had more than his share of myths created about him). Washington isn't great because he was extroardinarily brilliant or that because he had a perfect character. But he was great because he was someone people could believe in, because he always was keenly aware that he was setting an example that generations would look to, and because he turned down more power than he could have taken.

Without Washington the US might have gotten independence, but the government that was eventually formed would have likely been quite different. It's quite possible that no form central government would have ever emerged, and we would have been left with a loose confederation, with individual states forming their own alliances with other countries.

In terms of his generalship, you must remember, the US revolution wasn't inevitable, at least not at the time and place it happened. It is quite possible that the continental army could have folded in the early years of the war, and the colonies, in whole or in part, would have accepted a peace overture from Britain. Remember, even a few years before the Declaration of Independence, most people weren't looking for outright independence, and there were many supporters of the crown well into the war.

There is always a worst possible example for every general under any circumstances but being not extraordinary and being average means you will be judged as such.

After revolting from the British monarch, people were suggesting governments with 3 presidents, governments without an executive, and throwing other ideas out there. Meanwhile, some conservatives were talking about making Washington king, mistrustful of any system that would require changing your head of government every few years. The fact that Washington wanted a republic shot down any thoughts of him being named king; the fact that he would be the first president let people have confidence in creating the office of President with as much power as it did have.

Regarding democracy : It was the Enlightenment and afterwards French Revolution and yes later the american revolution that signaled the start of that area . But i agree that Washington actions had a good part in it . But remember at that time Washington wasn't the only General that could have been influenced by the Enlightenment . That was a positive action , but it still isn't enough for me. So we agree that he was an average General but his policies helped in establishing the democratic goverment in his country . If someone would to include him in a game it would be due to the latter.

Personally i see the form of a democratic goverment as a positive event , but i do not see Oratory or other abilities involved in Washington that would force me to select him as a great leader. I never said he wasn't a father of Nation . But ... As there are only so many Leaders a game can have , it won't be a disaster to add another , better leader in his place of other nations or his if there were better candidates.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

You seem to be basing your whole evaluation of Washington on his generalship alone. You need to take the broader view and consider the impact of his presidency. Here, there is no contest: he is the archetype of all future U.S. presidents, and his Farewell Address was required reading for schoolchildren for years. In this he urged America to "avoid entangling alliances" which set the stage for isolationist policy until the 1940's--and that's just one contribution.

 

[scy12]

Well that pretty much rules out everyone. Including FDR, your greatest leader of all. It's true that historical greatness is often largely a case of "right place at the right time" but at the same time the individual's reaction to the circumstances in which he's placed is what truly makes him great. For example, Washington could have been like Gates, charged Howe head-on and gotten the Continental Army completely obliterated at Brooklyn Heights and surrendered his whole force. That would change some things, wouldn't it? FDR could have come to power and decided that an American Great Leap Forward was the answer to the Depression instead of the "middle path" of the New Deal. That would have changed some things too.

FDR was supporting the same policies before getting in power.
It was not a case at a right place at a right time under the circumstances . Just, the Man that was always Right knew when the right time would come to act.

Washington didn't show the same abilities.

Of course that is my opinion.

 

[scy12]

You seem to be basing your whole evaluation of Washington on his generalship alone. You need to take the broader view and consider the impact of his presidency. Here, there is no contest: he is the archetype of all future U.S. presidents, and his Farewell Address was required reading for schoolchildren for years. In this he urged America to "avoid entangling alliances" which set the stage for isolationist policy until the 1940's--and that's just one contribution.

And why is the isolationist policy a positive event .? Under the so many European , and other Wars of 1800s his country could intervene to it's benefit. In this thread i am always speaking in geopolitical terms , only.

 

[NYHunter]

This doesn't scare me. Boudicca is still the best regardless of what any of you jealous people say.

 

[TheLastOne36]

I'd agree with you NYHunter if Fireaxis shows a pic of Boudica and she's hot.

Anyway this topic is completely off topic.

 

[Tercio]

It was the Enlightenment and afterwards French Revolution and yes later the american revolution that signaled the start of that area .

Ok, first thing's first. American Revolution: 1776, French Revolution: 1789.

But i agree that Washington actions had a good part in it . But remember at that time Washington wasn't the only General that could have been influenced by the Enlightenment .

This is immaterial considering that Washington was the one selected by the Continental Congress to serve as Commander-in-Chief. There could have been millions of other enlightened generals but they weren't appointed. Washington was.

That was a positive action , but it still isn't enough for me. So we agree that he was an average General but his policies helped in establishing the democratic goverment in his country. If someone would to include him in a game it would be due to the latter.

An average general who nevertheless prevailed. Victory speaks for itself. And what many people here, including me, have been trying to tell you, sir, is that you can't evaluate Washington solely on his military exploits. It is, in fact, his deeds as President that make him so revered. The wartime stuff is just the icing on the cake.

FDR was supporting the same policies before getting in power.
It was not a case at a right place at a right time under the circumstances . Just, the Man that was always Right knew when the right time would come to act.

You're fast running into the realm of hypocrisy. So Washington is just an average man who only did what anyone else would have done and Roosevelt is a inerrant godsend? This deification of FDR is the biggest flaw in your case to diminish Washington. You'll notice no one here has tried to tear down FDR...

 

[NYHunter]

All I have to say is NO!

I disagree . Roosevelt is the best leader of the American nation and one of the best leaders of the twentieth century.

 

[scy12]

Ok, first thing's first. American Revolution: 1776, French Revolution: 1789.



This is immaterial considering that Washington was the one selected by the Continental Congress to serve as Commander-in-Chief. There could have been millions of other enlightened generals but they weren't appointed. Washington was.



An average general who nevertheless prevailed. Victory speaks for itself. And what many people here, including me, have been trying to tell you, sir, is that you can't evaluate Washington solely on his military exploits. It is, in fact, his deeds as President that make him so revered. The wartime stuff is just the icing on the cake.

Ok, first thing's first. American Revolution: 1776, French Revolution: 1789.

Indeed. That was a mistake.

An average general who nevertheless prevailed. Victory speaks for itself. And what many people here, including me, have been trying to tell you, sir, is that you can't evaluate Washington solely on his military exploits. It is, in fact, his deeds as President that make him so revered. The wartime stuff is just the icing on the cake.

His deeds as a president had a positive effect but are not reason enough to put him in (mine)a Great Leader's list and so he is somewhat expendable.

You're fast running into the realm of hypocrisy. So Washington is just an average man who only did what anyone else would have done and Roosevelt is a inerrant godsend? This deification of FDR is the biggest flaw in your case to diminish Washington. You'll notice no one here has tried to tear down FDR...

When will people learn that the " You are a Hypocrite because you have a different opinion " stance is with no avail.

This deification of FDR is the biggest flaw in your case to diminish Washington.

I think FDR is better than Washington and he is a good example of a Leader , for several reasons , so i can show how Washington although a good leader , there are better. For example : both are modern Leaders people can relate to, and both are from the same nation so the discussion won't be judged by nationalism but by simple evaluation of their abilities. By comparing Washington to FDR i can show the difference.

So Washington is just an average man who only did what anyone else would have done

Correction. So Washington is just an average General who only did what anyone else would have done.

While his other policies are also positive and it is ambiguous if other leaders would have acted in that way. However regarding the amount of skill and ability involved in those events and in his initiatives i think there are better leaders. One of them is FDR.

His initiative to A) create War Machine , B) abandon the isolationist stance to the disagreement of most C)act aggressively to his country's benefit. Had a tremendous effect to the emergence of his country as a superpower. The fact that he had a large history of supporting that stance while most didn't is also important.


What do i support here ? Washington is a Leader that can be replaced. But there are also worst.

 

[Tercio]

When will people learn that the " You are a Hypocrite because you have a different opinion " stance is with no avail.

The problem is not that you have a different opinion but that you casually and with highly subjective "evidence" discard Washington while holding FDR up as an undeniable paragon. In short, you make it seem as though to have Washington is unjustified whereas to have anyone other than FDR is unthinkable. This makes your case look extremely biased and diminishes your credibility.

His deeds as a president had a positive effect but are not reason enough to put him in (mine)a Great Leader's list and so he is somewhat expendable.

Ok, and here we have the crux of it all. This is your opinion, which, yes, you have mentioned. But remember, you need to present your opinion as such. Your tone throughout this thread has been very authoritative, as though we're all supposed to agree with you. This is why I think you've managed to provoke such a response. I'm going to guess that you generally prefer 20th century history. The 18th century may not interest you very much and so you're naturally going to favor more modern things. That's all very well and good and a perfect explanation for why Firaxis chose to have some civs get multiple leaders in Civ IV. I myself enjoy studying (among other things) Chinese imperial history and so was very happy that Civ IV offered an alternative to Mao Zedong. However, I can't deny that Mao Zedong has had an immense impact on Chinese history and is thus worthy of inclusion as a leader for the Chinese civ. Likewise, you need to simply appreciate that US history is more than just WWII and beyond.

And one more thing, I get the impression that you haven't had much exposure to information about Washington's presidency or his military career. Go ahead and take a look, it's cool stuff.