 |
|
squid
|
|
who was not even a world leader.
Charlemagne did the most, of course the dictators like Napoleon get a lot of credit because he attempted to conquer but not control large areas and sort of got his tail kicked in a short period of time. His lasting impact was minimal.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
civcop
|
|
I voted for Nappy for two reasons:
1. He's qualified for the position
2. At least you would view the French under him as having some bite.
Perhaps I am alone in this, but I tend to view the French as being less willing to fight than most other nations. I realize that they were once a world power (and still are, for that matter), but that was centuries ago and I wasn't alive then. So when I hear "French", I think of WWII. When I hear "Joan of Arc" I think of the Catholic Church's error. Seriously, when the leader of the pink civ appears on your screen demanding tribute (and she looks like a teenage girl minus the acne), will you be inclined to yield or feel threatened? DeGaulle is even a better choice than Joan, and Firaxis probably couldn't create a harald whose nose fit in the screen field.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
squid
|
|
What I'm saying is that Napoleon's empire was basically the same ( in size ) before Napoleon came to power as when he left. As for the "great general thing", there is a reason the term "Napoleonic tactics" is used with scorn. There isn't any tactics in that.
Alexander, by comparision, was responsible for the spread of Greek culture throughout much of the East, several great libraries, etc, etc. He held his territory and people were assimilated by Greek culture
I'm just arguing against Napoleon because he is the popular choice. Not neccesarily the best. We are definitely neglecting
medieval European history.
Sure, the "Holy Roman Emporor" was neither Holy nor Roman, but that was a very interesting time...perhaps more so that Napoleon running around at random and then getting half his troops killed in Russia.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by squid
What I'm saying is that Napoleon's empire was basically the same ( in size ) before Napoleon came to power as when he left. As for the "great general thing", there is a reason the term "Napoleonic tactics" is used with scorn. There isn't any tactics in that.
Alexander, by comparision, was responsible for the spread of Greek culture throughout much of the East, several great libraries, etc, etc. He held his territory and people were assimilated by Greek culture
|
But the point isn't empire size, it's influence on the world. Napoleon's rule is indisputably the most influential part of French history following the Revolution. The Napoleonic Wars had a cataclysmic effect on Europe. And he was indeed a great general, because he won battles. Lots of them. They all had to team up against him to beat him.
Oh, and Alexander's empire collapsed right after his death. So much for territory gain. I wouldn't say "assimilated by Greek culture." Certainly, permeated by Hellenistic culture is more apt. There was a mingling, not a takeover. In many ways the Greeks in those areas became more exoticized than those cultures became Greek!
Cheers.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mark L
why does everyone pick boney? it would be something like putting Hitler as head of the Germans, Stalin as head of the Russians, Longshanks as head of the English, and Nero as head of the Romans. |
Well, Civ I did have Stalin head of the Russians.
And Longshanks could hardly be considered the most influentual English king ever in anyone's reckoning.
Ditto Nero and Rome.
However...
Hitler was probably the most influential leader in German history, or any history! So if you just go by influence, yes, he'd be there. But Firaxis has to consider good taste, as he was a genocidal maniac. No one would be happy with his inclusion, except perhaps Neo-Nazis. And I don't put much stock in their opinions.
Napoleon was a megalomaniacal conquerer, yes. But genocidal and murdering? No. There is a strong case to be made that he was indeed the most important French leader in terms of world impact. He did not, however, propogate atrocities on a scale nearly as large as the men you lumped him with. He was a kinder, gentler kind of dictator.
I think, up to a certain degree, Firaxis shouldn't judge the leaders on whether they were good or bad people, but rather on how great their impact was on their society and beyond their society. That's why I think Joan is a poor choice. Along those lines, so is Cleopatra. I know it would severly curtail the number of women in the game, but I would pretty much replace them all. Peter The Great was certainly more influential a ruler than Catherine. Ramesses much more than Cleo. You can take your pick of the French rulers more influential than Joan - Napoleon, Louis XIV, Charlemange, etc. Elizabeth is pretty much the only of the female picks I agree with. This is not to say there were not some majorly influential female rulers, just that the civs they picked tend to represent vastly patriarchal cultures where the men had greater opportunities to lead.
Last edited by Boris Godunov on 04-10-2001 at 21:48
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Martinus
|
 |
of Poland
Jun 2001
time: 06:15
|
|
I am sorry, but why Napoleon was a genocidal maniac? I didn't hear about French concentration camps or gulags.
Yes, he waged wars, and he was megalomaniac, but so was Bismarck, Catherine the Great, Ceasar, Charlemagne, Louis XIV, Xerxes, Alexander or Shaka. (not too mention Mao, who qualifies as genocidal)
Practically speaking the only ones that were not megalomaniac were Ghandi, Hiawatha (although I don't know about him enough to be sure) and Lincoln.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-10-2001 06:53
) but still brilliant...ALSO as well as being a good general he was a pretty good leader...
But I still voted Napoleon. If not him, then Louis Louis.
), err, umm, go François!
|