 |
| |
|
|
Dwarf Lord
|
|
Hi,
I think this discussion is very interesting, so I decided to state my opinion as well. Firstly, I have to say that I agree with the thread starter on Joan of Arc being not the best choice. She simply never actually ruled France, so I consider her to be not that fitting.
Here is why I didn't vote for Charlemange, who definetly was a great leader:
Charlemange's, ("Karl der Große" in German, btw.) came from France, but at his time, France didn't actually exist as the nation "France", his nation was one which united today's France and Germany. Remembering this fact, we can easily recognize that this would cause a kind of "interference" with Germany. How can there be a Germany in Civ, if Charlemagne rules it? And then, don't forget that Germany wasn't "established", even before he occupied it.
Next one is Charles DeGaulle, who is amired by the most people in France, but is, in my opinion,being overestimated and not comparable to Napoleon or Louis XIV.
And then there are Napoleon I (you should add the number, just to avoid a possible, though unlikely, misunderstanding!) and Louis XIV.
The one I like most is Napoleon I, simply because I think he was the real genious. His triumph as a military leader was impressive, I think it is needless to say that he was one of the best military leaders in history. Besides that, he also made numerous reforms and ruled the state very well.
Louis XIV also was an important person in history, as he ruled the state decently and made France very powerful.
However, my vote is Napoleon, I think he is the greatest of the french kings/emperors/leaders.
In 1806, Germany was resolved as a consequence of Napoleon the first's military success, so there was no Germany, like with Charlemagne. Thefore, we could define Civ's Napoleon I as the one before 1806, thus avoiding another interference. The leaders in civ don't age anyway (they wouldn't survive the thousands's of years otherwise, would they?) so I think that would be ok.
Of course, there were lots of other great leaders in France, but I think the poll options were chosen well, since persons like Richelieu just aren't of that great significance. (they were important, no doubt, but can they be compared to Napoleon I or Louis XIV ? - I don't think so.)
Dwarf Lord
Last edited by Dwarf Lord on 19-11-2001 at 00:23
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
First of all, just because one is well known is not the sole reason to make leader.
Second, when thinking about a leader for a civ, one needs to look at the history carefully.
Charlemagne was a great leader,no doubt, of the Franks- who are not by default French. Why do you think the Germans claim him too? He existed far too early to be a good leader (it would be like making the pilgrim leadership America's leaders)
Joan is the patron saint, but remember who burned her? The French allies of the English, who had a big interest in keeping the King weak. Also, it terms of achievements, she won one major battle, that's it. Being made a saint is a sentimental thing, based on what people beleived afterwards, not effective rulership.
Napoleon-he was a Corsican who hijacked the revolution and ruled for only 17 years at most. The French love him for the glory he brought but long-term, his most important achievement was his code, which was based on the work of others.
De Gaulle is too recent by far- it would be like making LBJ or Nixon leader of the Americans. Besides the current constitution of the fifth republic (yesm they are on number 5) he did little for France as a culture
Louis XIV on the other hand, the Sun King, built modern, unifed france. He finished Richealui (misspelled) and Mazarin's centralizing attempts and made the King and Paris the true center of France. He built versailles, had the Bourbons installed in Spain and made France the unquestioned land-power of Europe. The Golden Age of France as a true unified france was under him. So besides liking military leaders disproportionally or looking for popularity contests, both of which are shallow reaons for picking really, can anyone give a good counter argument for the SUN KING?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Blaupanzer
|
 |
Fairfax, VA
Oct 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
I voted for Napoleon I, the greatest contrarian ruler in history. Against the inevitable migration of economic power and influence away from the "center," stood France. Only a leader in politics, law, and military art could possibly have led them successfully. That was Napoleon. He held out for nearly 20 years against the full weight of history. Most amazing. As to influence on the direction of French history, the only competitor to Napoleon is Charlemagne.
However, in terms of the game, he, Charlemagne, and Joan would serve better as leaders that emerge from combat. Louis IV would not serve that role logically. So, IF leaders weren't so rare, it might be acceptable for Louis XIV to be ruler and the other three to be leaders.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sun Zi 36
|
|
quote:
"I said he LOOKS like a French Hitler, you foo'. Read my post!" |
i knew that. i wrote with the knowledge of that in mind.
Actually, I think Napoleon I is much more well known and suited to be reflected in his military genius then anything else. While Louis XIV was well known for actually being king. So maybe Louis XIV is a better choice. Joan and Napoleon should be military leaders.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jason
|
|
Halifax, NS, Canada
Aug 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
My choices, in order of preference:
1. Mazarin
2. Richelieu
3. Louis XIV
4. Napoleon
I like Mazarin, although he's not as famous as Richelieu. Louis and Napoleon were both the really big show.
They could do worse than Joan of Arc, but the gender-bend doesn't appeal to me much.
And another thing, they say "Joan d'Arc," that's idiotic. French last name but anglicized first name? It's Jeanne d'Arc or Joan of Arc, not half and half.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
d_dudy
|
|
was napolean really that great? i mean militarily, he was very good. but national policy? if he wouldn't have gotten into so many wars maybe france would have been better off for it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jason
|
|
Halifax, NS, Canada
Aug 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
Napoleon "If there is any among you who would kill his Emperor, let him fire" Bonaparte a coward? I... seee 
Ok, so it probobly didn't happen like that, but he most definately was not a cowardly leader. If he had problems with bravery they lay in the other direction, I'd say.
Sissified? Is that a historically valid judgement? Seems rather like the German and English traditional historical bias there... The sissy Frenchmen who everyone imitated, heh.
In Louis' time we're talking about a France so powerful her fleet had orders to fire on any foreign ship that didn't salute her first (give national precedence.) Despite the effectiveness of the coallitions against him in his later years, Louis was taking on pretty much all of Europe except for Bavaria and his *****ified Spain.
All imperial states tended to be snobs, that's just the way things are. I've gotten over my commonwealth bias and I rather like the French in the period of their ascendancy. Richelieu, Mazarin, Louis XIV and Napoleon were masterful and bold.
Napoleon III on the other hand was a goober politician, how'd he get on the list? Heh.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caesar2760
|
|
Ohio...
Nov 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
Richelieu, no doubt. Why? Well, without him, the Hapsburg hegemony of Europe would have been comparable to China in the far east before the 1700's. France would have been the Korea of European history. Anyway, raison d'etat is plenty reason for me. People seem to be willing to allow Bismark his realpolotik without a flinch, but the rehashing (and, I must add, expert use of) a French idea is no innovation. But my friend Otto is not the point here. Here's to the Cardinal! The pope of the time (not sure which) once said: "If there is a hell, he shall go there. If not, well, he has ruled his country well." I'm sure it sounds better in Latin, but you get the idea.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Michael7586
|
|
Toronto, Canada
Nov 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
When it comes to "high profile" French leaders, there are only three worth considering and they are Charlemagne, Napoleon and Louis XIV. My vote goes to Louis XIV as the very epitome of a grandoise leader and a perfect embodiment of France at its highest point of world influence.
These leaders aspired to European domination and thus are worthy choices for Civilization game leaders. Joan d'Arc was a peasant nobody whose effect was short-lived and singular. I suspect the reason for her inclusion was to give some form of gender pseudo-equality.
Same goes for Russia - why they chose Catherine over Peter is completely beyond me. Peter was truly a great leader by any definition while Catherine was little more than a tyrant with good PR (Voltaire).
The English choice of Elizabeth on the other hand is indeed worthy. I have always argued that Queen Elizabeth was England's greatest King.
Michael7586
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Barnacle Bill
|
 |
Somewhere on the wine dark sea
Oct 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
My first choice would be Louis XIV - the true Founding Father of modern France. His influence was really huge, and felt to this day.
My second choice is "other", meaning Richelieu. He was largely responsible for the existance of a centralized state (so Louis XIV could become it). Of course, he did not where the crown, but think of him as a French Bismarck.
My third choice is Napoleon (no short jokes!). Of course, he also had an aweful lot to do with how France is today. In a way, although they lived at different times, Napoleon, Richelieu and Louis XIV could be thought of collectively like the Founding Fathers of the US. Plus, he's a lot of fun. He did a lot more than military stuff. While his conquests were all lost in the post-war peace settlement, his reforms of French administration and law still stand today.
Charlemagne was more the founding father of the Holy Roman Empire than of France. Charles Martel, now, just for stopping the Arabs at Tours desirves an honorable mention. He was another Bismarck type - "power behind the throne", but his descendants (including Charlemagne) wore the crown themselves.
De Gaulle only gets the nod if you absolutly, positively must have a 20th Century guy. Clearly he was the most significant French leader of the Century. His anti-Americanism never bugged me, because I always thought he had a lot of credibility generally (while most guys who make of point of knee-jerk Anti-Americanism do so to cover their own lack of ideas). While I personally would like to have seen France stay in NATO, I think it is France's right to withdraw if it thinks its interests are best served that way. Remember what George Washington said about avoiding "entangling Alliances" - I wish we had an American De Gaulle to get us out of the UN (and besides, we won the cold war without blowing up the world even w/o France in NATO, so all's well that ends well). De Gaulle's pre-war book "The Army of the Future" is also a very interesting read (too bad the French brass didn't read it). Clemenceau runs a close second for 20th Century-only guys, though.
Joan is kind of in the Charles Martel category, only less so because really she was just a field commander. She'd be like Turkey's Ataturk would be remembered IF he'd died right after winning the war against Greece (before he also deposed the Sultan and totally reformed Turkish government & society after the war).
Another "dark horse" is Napoleon III. A big loser, but a pompous one who might make a good AI for human players to beat up on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HolyWarrior
|
|
The civ's 'persona' should be an actual ruler. Leaders should be the military heroes.
Thus Louis is the obvious choice for 'persona'. Joan and Napoleon would be leaders, along with Charlemagne and De Gaulle.
Similarly with the Americans. Washington is first and foremost a military hero and should be represented in the game as a leader.
Similarly with Eisenhower, Pershing, (Teddy) Roosevelt, MacArthur, Grant.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
d_dudy
|
|
teddy roosevelt, war hero?
i wouldn't say he's a hero. or a great leader
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caesar2760
|
|
Ohio...
Nov 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
Based on that argument, why should Abraham Lincoln get the nod for American Leader? I mean, if we think that the leader should be somewhat "on the ground level," that is, help to create at least an American country if not an American civ (no comment), then the nod should probably go to John Jay or Thomas Jefferson. This is the reasoning that lead me to Richelieu. Without a Richelieu, there is no France to speak of. He's probably the first Frenchman to have the honor of that title. Maybe the advisors should have civ specific names. All of these people could be easily integrated that way, and a balance of advice between such differing personalities would be interesting to see, even if their modes of thought would be completely ahistorical.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-11-2001 00:10
|