 |
Who should lead an hypotetical Latin-american civ?
This poll is closed. |
| Pancho Villa |
   |
0 |
0% |
| King Pedro |
   |
1 |
7.14% |
| Simón Bolivar |
   |
9 |
64.29% |
| José San Martín |
   |
1 |
7.14% |
| Fidel Castro |
   |
3 |
21.43% |
| None of them |
   |
0 |
0% |
| Total: |
14 voters |
100% |
|
|  |
 |
|
GhengisFarb
|
 |
I want my HAMBURGERS!!
May 2002 time: 23:20
|
|
quote: Originally posted by yellfromhell
I commited and error not saying "Pancho Villa was the only man IN ALL THE 20TH CENTURY that invaded USA continental territory". I appologize for that. About Pancho Villa being a bandit that robbed people, well, that can be discussed. If you consider legendary Robin Hood a bandit, well then Pancho Villa was a bandit. Anyway, if he was or not a bandit thats not the problem: in fact he did occupy a town in USA continental territory in the early 1900s. That doesnt look like what Al Capone did.
|
yellfromhell,
I have no problem with any of your comments except for the concept of Pancho. He was never leader of Mexico. His reign of influence lasted 8 years, from 1915 when the US backed Carranza as President of Mexico to 1923 when 7 gunmen riddled his car with bullets (sound like Capone?). Al Capone controlled several cities and Chicago was much larger than Columbus, New Mexico.
You must also put the time period into this. This was 1917, while Pancho raided a town for 4 1/2 hours (he and his "entire civilization of 500 bandits" attacked Columbus at 2:30am and were driven off by 7:00am) he never occupied it. In fact, he only did it in an attempt to get back at America (VERY similiar to Osama BinLaden) for not supporting him in his cause and hopefully cause the US to go to war with Mexico who he also had a grudge against. John Chisolm controlled almost half of New Mexico and his control lasted longer than 4 1/2 hours.
I can see Pancho as a civ and civ leader in an Old West scenario but that's it. I think anyone would be more qualified as Mexico's leader representation, Santa Anna, Maximillian, etc.
If you consider Pancho's actions an invasion, I could get 500 neighbors together, drive across the US-Canadian border and torch some town then hold off the local law enforcement for 4 1/2 hours and qualify as a civ!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yellfromhell
|
 |
Montevideo, Uruguay
Jun 2002 time: 05:20
|
|
Ghengis,
Certainly you make my arguments look like joke. But realize I didnt say "Mexico invaded the US", but "Pancho Villa, a mexican, was the only man who...". Thats all. I dont think also that Pancho Villa should be the mexican civ leader. I put his name in the poll because I personally believe his name is better known for the anglo-saxons than Santa Anna (and if you look at a poll titled "nationalities" you`ll see that more than 50% of apolyton members that post in these threads are anglo-saxons).
About the 'invasion', well, formally it was one. I understand the point of your argument, but there`s no other word than 'invade' for what Pancho Villa did (no matter if it sounds ridiculous).
In the end, something very conected with a discussion thats been taken in another thread: ¿which leader would most of the mexicans prefare for their civ? They would probably say 'Pancho', but most likely say "Moctezuma". That would confirm in part that they are proud of their Aztec influences and that they are the rightfull heirs of the Aztec culture. ¿What do all of you think about that?
Hugs
Yellfromhell
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Aro
|
 |
Ipanema
Jul 2002 time: 02:20
|
|
Yellfromhell,
Well, You probabily could do it, in a multi-player game, cause I'm a terrible player... 
But... As a matter of fact, by the time the Brazilian Empire took the Rio Grande do Sul, you in Uruguay had the stronger schollarity in the continent, if I'm not wrong and confused with dates. Because this, I suppose, by the end of the independent period (Republica de Piratiny), Rio Grande became the state with the highest literacy level in Brazil. Anyway, I dont like so much of this part of the Brazilian history, I think our destiny is more pacefull. I'm a builder... BTW, we was in the same side once, in the Paraguay War, don't we? Imperialism is a contagious disease... 
In the future, who knows, if Mercosur works after all, we could be under a single flag, maybe the 'Estados Unidos de la America del Sur'. What you thik about? 
Answering your last post: what about Emiliano Zapata? He was a leader, too, and anglo-saxons knows him. They even made a movie, with Marlon Brando!
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Aro
|
 |
Ipanema
Jul 2002 time: 02:20
|
|
I'm Brazilian, and my ancestors was jewish people who lived in Portugal, in the XVIth century. This's history, now... But I can see why our portuguese friends didn't like that idea very much, all over the centuries... Last year, I have been traveling over the frontier between Spain and Portugal. It's a fortified city after another, in both sides. Problems with the neighborhood? He he... 
Ehm... I couldn't find the Spanish Forum... Where is it?
BTW, are someone thinking about a colonial mod or something? Whith Spain, Portugal, England, Holland and a lot of land to conquer? Over the XVth, XVIth and XVIIth centuries! Wow!
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
yellfromhell
|
 |
Montevideo, Uruguay
Jun 2002 time: 05:20
|
|
Estilpon,
Aro was right in what he said about Fidel Castro, but I want to tell you something more:
If you read the first message of the thread, you`ll see I said 2 times that this has nothing to do with Good and Evil. Lets put those categorys a side and try to think in terms of the "influence" or "importance" the leaders have or had.
You know: the 20th century was a period of time in which lots of things happened, changes in every place, many discoveries, etc. I suppose we must over-estimate the 20th century in order to include the American civ in Civ3 (because otherwise they would be out - they are an extremelly young civ in a world with 6000 years of history). And, as you see, Firaxis estimated that way that century. So, Castro lived half of that century as Cubas leader, he`d been on top of the news all the time, he argues with the strongest country in the world, he did great things for Cuba and terrible things for Cuba. Those extremes make him very significant. I could have included the 'Che Guevara' instead, who had inspired many revolts in S.America, fought in Angola, inspired many french students to protests in that 60´s French May, etc. But, as I always say: you can vote with your own leaders if you like: just post your vote and I´ll daily post the partials results of the poll including it.
Hugs.
Yell
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yellfromhell
|
 |
Montevideo, Uruguay
Jun 2002 time: 05:20
|
|
Aro,
Yes, I know about the Paraguay war: Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay united to invade Paraguay... Sounds a little surrealistic in these days ¿doesnt it? 
Paraguay was a very strong country... by that time it could perfectly be called "Empire". Lets take out Uruguay from the three invaders and imagine just the enormous Brazil and Argentina needing to combat together against Paraguay... it looks so strange...
But, as you say, those times are over.
About an hypotetical unification, it would be wonderful. Unification is stablished as a goal in Uruguayian Constitution. But, you see, today we have very different situations: Argentina is struggling, Brazil is fighting for power in South America against the USA in the diplomatic scene and trying to mantain the international investors while moving to left-hand politics; Uruguay is trying to save its banks and avoid an external-debt cease of payment; in Paraguay the situation looks like that of a civil war... it seems we dont have time to look at each other.
But I never loose the hope. Thats what we loose last.
Hugs.
Yell
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GhengisFarb
|
 |
I want my HAMBURGERS!!
May 2002 time: 23:20
|
|
quote: Originally posted by yellfromhell
Ghengis,
Once again: I killed nobody. |
Huh? You aren't Pancho's grandson are you? If so I didn't mean to be running your grandfather into the ground, I just don't see him as the leader of the Mexican civilization.
quote: Originally posted by yellfromhell
I may do a lot of mistakes, but that doesnt have to make you angry. |
I've never been angry, I just thought Pancho was a really strange suggestion!
quote: Originally posted by yellfromhell
Eventhough, what you say confuses me more: ¿Why does every united-statian I talk to just knows by sound the name 'Pancho Villa' and nothing about the two others? Maybe its just coincidence.
|
You got me there. Pancho isn't in our history books, but Santa Anna and Maximillian are considered part of American History. Honestly, though I had no idea that Mexicans viewed Pancho Villa as a great national hero/patriot.
PS: I just can't imagine playing this game and all of a sudden Pancho Villa pops up and says "Come, leader so-and-so, view the mighty Hanging Gardens I have constructed." That just seems so NOT Pancho.
Last edited by GhengisFarb on 20-07-2002 at 18:14
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yellfromhell
|
 |
Montevideo, Uruguay
Jun 2002 time: 05:20
|
|
Ghengis,
I hope you wont feel touched in your patriotic feelings with what Im about to say.
I dont know if the mexicans see Pancho as a national heroe. But its also doubtfull that a russian see Catherine as their national heroe. You see: sometimes the feeling of patriotism is mixed with that of nationalism. Surely the russians would prefare a more modern leader, someone who had taken them to play in the big scenario. For many latinamerican countrys, the nearest they can be to that 'big scenario' is arguing with the biggies (say USA, UK, France, China, Japan, Spain, etc). But just argue, not fight (because latinamerican countries dont act so stupidly). For that reason, bandits or rebels sometimes have the best popularity. Why? Because, they dont have to be carefull of what they say when arguing with the biggies... they can just shoot and hide. That was the case of Pancho. That was the case of El Che. That is the case of Zapatist Guerilla, the case of the sandinist in Nicaragua, etc. All of them have and had a tremendous popularity in certain times. 'El Che', for example, is even more popular than Fidel Castro for latinamerican left-hand politics supporters. And not just for them: in my country, Uruguay, I voted for the liberal Jorge Battle, and eventhough I sympathize with Ches ideals.
All of that comes joined to the disastrous politics USA applied in past century for the Latinamerican issues, and that seems to be continuing in this new millenium.
And you should know something: the best popularity rates and the strongest unity in any country always come when you have an enemy outside. And for millons of latinamericans the US government (not the people) acts like an enemy.
I hope you can position in this side of the scene to understand the point of view Im describing you.
Hugs,
Yellfromhell
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Aro
|
 |
Ipanema
Jul 2002 time: 02:20
|
|
Yell,
King Pedro I of Brazil? Or Pedro II? Or, I must say, Emperor Pedro I or Pedro II... We never had a King, really. Was an "Imperador"... A little pretentious, I know, but by the time of Pedro II we used to be very nasty. Imperialistic, and so. By other hand, he builted univesities, railroads, factories, astronomic observatories, the Botanic Gardens (where I live!), even telephones! And he had a strong diplomacy. He was an warmonger and a builder, at the same time... And, due the size of the country, he had a lot of corruption, too.
BTW, we have a lot of corruption in Brazil just now. Some things never changes... 
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20. Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|