26-10-2001 19:13									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Elizabeth I was not a "Great Leader" in civ3 terms...she neither aided the completion of a great wonder and did not lead military forces...

And this can be applied to a hell of alot of the bad suggestions made!

A few of mine...

English: Nelson, Wellington, Malborough, Cromwell, Clive of India

That's all I'm bothered with

	26-10-2001 22:01									#32
	Remove this text

Why are people putting Bill Clinton in? I'm not criticizing him--hell, I voted for him--but he hardly seems to be the right candidate for such a role.

Cromwell may have been an "arsehole," but he was an important figure in Brit history and certainly kicked the Royalists' butts seven ways to Sunday.

What about Admiral Nelson?

I don't see a problem making a ruler a great leader as long as that figure was, historically, also a military leader (like most kings used to be). But there should NOT be a unit for a leader that is the same as the civ's ruler (like Elizabeth).

And yes, I think that they should all be military persons, since that is their function and where they come from (elite units).

Cheers.

	27-10-2001 07:47									#33
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I agree Clinton should be taken out. FDR should be put back in. Why was FDR taken out?

	27-10-2001 16:52									#34
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Germans:

Friedrich is a popular name for German leaders. But do we know who we are talking about? There have been many Friedrichs / Fredericks in German history, and the most famous one, namely King Frederick II, the Great of Prussia, was not a German emperor or king but just king of one kingdom within the empire.... so it would be Frederick I or II, Barbarossa or Fiederico, both medieval emperors of the.... now I'm having a go

...Holy Roman Empire of German Nation...

, of which only one has achieved great fame, namely the first, Frederick I Barbarossa. Frederick II was a lazy git, though he is always shown as being well-educated and strong, but he messed up the whole tatars situation in 1248, so he's a halfwit, may he have achieved Jerusalem by treaties or not.... well, so I suppose we go with Frederick I Barbarossa, the leader of the Third Crusade, until he drowned in 1190, making Richard Lionheart the new leader... and some French git

-->

1. Friedrich I (Barbarossa)

2. we need some emperor from the renaissance til 1806.... some 30 years war emperor would be a good idea.... Ferdinand or something like that... or Leopold, who knows

3. Wilhelm I OR Otto v. Bismarck... thing is, one of them was emperor while the other was chancellor, now who do we want? I think Bismarck was more important for Germany than anyone else in that time, so we go with the chancellor. Wilhelm II is not going to be included, otherwise I'll buy a sniper rifle and Sid M is a has been

4. Hitler? nah... though the special unit might be the panzer (which is an affrant considering the golden age would be the nazi/war time then), Hitler shouldn't be considered an important leader... he's just a symbol character of the whole National Socialist movement, and that covered 12 years.... but then, there needs to be coverage for the war, eh? I'd suggest a post-war chancellor though, so I go with Kohl

1. Friedrich I
2. some dude
3. Bismarck
4. Kohl

thank you

	27-10-2001 17:22									#35
	Remove this text

Germans: Rommel, of course.

	27-10-2001 17:34									#36
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Some additional leaders I haven't seen yet.

Eqypt: Nasser
France: de Gaulle, Napoleon III
Iroquois: Joseph Brant

	27-10-2001 19:16									#37
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Gothmog Some additional leaders I haven't seen yet. Eqypt: Nasser France: de Gaulle, Napoleon III Iroquois: Joseph Brant

I mentioned de Gaulle on another board. But Napy III? No way...he was a moron. That would be akin to giving the USA McClellan as a Great Leader.

As for The Germans...

Frederick The Great is an obvious choice, and he was German, and under his rule Prussia became the most powerful of the German states (not counting Austria-Hungary, but he kicked their butts anyway). I would put him at the top of Germany's great leaders:

Frederick The Great
Rommel
Hindenburg
Barbarossa

What about Von Schleiffen (sp)? Two-front war...

Bismarck is the civ leader, so I doubt he will be one of the Great Leaders. I still say that the Great Leaders will be all military figures. The are promoted from army units and perform a military function, after all.

Cheers.

	27-10-2001 19:23									#38
	Full PM-box? Change here!

are we talking about military leaders or political leaders? some people here seem to be mixing that up, you can't count Rommel in the same list as a political leader... of course, in some cases, it doesn't make a difference (until war strateges were changed and empires became more difficile...)

military leaders for Germany might be:

Helmut von Moltke, Erwin Rommel.... well, there are more from WWII, but we want to me multi-coloured through history eh?

Frederick the Great had nice military strategies as well, but is also a policital leader... and tied to Prussia as well

Schlieffen had nothing to do with 2 fronts... he just created a plan for overrunning France within short time, with at least 2 wings, encircling their army, winning...

	27-10-2001 19:36									#39
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov I mentioned de Gaulle on another board. But Napy III? No way...he was a moron. That would be akin to giving the USA McClellan as a Great Leader.

I thought this was about political leaders. But you're right about N III, I forgot to add this smilie after his name . What I love about N III is that he was a moron.

	27-10-2001 19:43									#40
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Gothmog I thought this was about political leaders. But you're right about N III, I forgot to add this smilie after his name . What I love about N III is that he was a moron.

I'm talking military leaders. I don't think the Great Leaders that arise will be political, I think they will be military.

quote: Frederick the Great had nice military strategies as well, but is also a policital leader... and tied to Prussia as well

"nice..." lol, understatement. Frederick was a brilliant military leader. Yes, he was the King, but in those days, being a king and an army leader were inevitably tied together.

So what if he was from Prussia? Prussia was a German state inhabited by German people. Doesn't that make him German? Besides, there was no German nation until 1871. The HRE, while it comprised mostly German states, was not a nation. It did not hold political sovereignty over its territory. The German states within the HRE frequently went to war with each other. The "borders" of the HRE were pretty superficial, and the Emperor had NO authority over any kingdom's internal affairs. His only powers were vested in the military.

Frederick expanded the territory of Prussia exponentially and established it as the greatest of the German kingdoms, which would culminate in Prussia being the catalyst for German unification in the 19th century. In a sense, he helped make the German nation that exists today.

Cheers.

PS- Kohl? KOHL?? That corrupt, fat b@stard? Cha!

	27-10-2001 19:44									#41
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

we captured Napoleon III at Sedan

and forced him to retreat as Emperor so we could found our own empire

	31-10-2001 04:55									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Germans: Guderian (Architect of the Panzer corps and blitzkrieg!)