 |
|
Michael7586
|
|
Toronto, Canada
Nov 2001 time: 00:20
|
|
IMHO...
I'd like to see Peter the Great as Russia's leader as he was Russia's most important and innovative leader.
France, I'd vote for Napoleon or Louis XIV.
For England, I'd vote for Sir Winston.
For Germany, I think Frederick would be a better choice than Bismark or Hitler.
As for the debate about Hitler/Stalin/Mao - I'd stay away from all three unless you are making a 20th century mod. All three are pretty dispicable tyrants responsible for millions of civilian deaths in this century.
Michael
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Michael7586
|
|
Toronto, Canada
Nov 2001 time: 00:20
|
|
I don't want to start a British CW thread-jack here, but the person who mentioned Richard III appears to be a bit mistaken. Yes, he was killed in battle, but that was a "political" battle defending his "allegedly" usurped throne.
If you are looking for the great Warrior-King Richard Plantagenet, that was the First, also known as "Lionheart" who led the second Crusade against Saladin.
On the same point, Edward I or Edward III were certainly England's greatest warrior Kings - far greater than Henry V who just happened to benefit from the dominance of the longbow when used against France. Certainly Henry V was a good warrior-King, just not the "greatest" in my opinion.
Michael
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Andreiguy
|
|
quote: I agree with you that Stalin should not be a leader for Russia, but I do think that Catherine has got to go, so who should be the leader of Russia? Peter the Great, Ivan the Terrible, Lennin? The choice is not clear cut and these are fairly disreputable as well. As for American help in WW2, do not forget that America supplied Russia with lend lease equipment and also with resources that Russia did not have at the time (for example, the US suppied over 80% of Russias supplies of aviation gasoline) They did much more than keep Japan preoccupied (esp considering that the Japanese army could not have taken on the Russian army even if they had decided to go in that direction, one could argue that Japan's failure in 1939-1940 in Manchuria indirectly resulted in the decision to attack Pearl Harbour) |
Ivan the Terrible- the sobriquet says it all -contributed much to early Muscovy but, like many Russian leaders, did more bad than good.
Lenin- though very well-known and vital to Russian history, Lenin was more of a revolutionary leader than a national administrator. He began Russia's new modernization which would continue far into the century, but until his death his focus was on changing Russia, not building it.
Peter the Great- undoubtedly the greatest ruler of Russia, who deserves to be in civ. He did too many things to list here, among them, westernizing Russia and founding St. Petersburg....
America did supply very needed material to Russia - my point was that Russia suffered the most damage of any nation during the war, and it was this sacrifice, not America's invaluble help, was the decisive factor that allowed her victory.
quote: I would definatly like to see Stalin or Lenin in place for the Russians though. Stalin's shrewd tactics were crucial in WW1. |
Lenin - addressed above.
Stalin - shrewd tactics in WWI? This is new to me. Would you mind giving details on this? The main reason Stalin would not be my choice (and, hopefully, anyone's who has the info) is similar to the reason that a German would not choose Hitler - he was simply a murderer.
|
|
|  |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|