Which leaders you'd change

[Michael7586]

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]

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]

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.

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.

[Brizey]

Might as well add my $.02 to the opinion-fest:

America: George Washington. Period. He is THE icon of the United States.

Russia: Peter the Great

Greece: Alexander is obvious.

Egypt: Ramses II was probably the most powerful person that ever lived relative to the rest of the world in his own time. And he was actually Egyptian, which of course, doesn't seem to be a requirement for our politically correct friends at Firaxis.

Aztecs: Montezuma is just the leader everyone recognizes from history. His leadership capabilities are, uh, questionable.

Rome: Augustus is probably a better choice than Julius Ceasar.

China: Pretty much anyone is better than Mao.

Arabs: Muhammad. He is probably the MVP of all time for any civilization. The people at Firaxis were just wimping out and shying away from a religious leader (although, apparently it was OK to pick JOA).

[Tattila the Hun]

I remember from the bible, a character named the "Queen of Sheba"? Did this person exist? Was she, in any respect, great?

I'd vote for Cleo for the leaderof egypt, but I'd prefer the Asterix the Gaul version. Such a cute nose...

[Ribannah]

Yes, she existed (Queen Sheba rather than Queen of Sheba, I believe, but the accounts are a bit vague), and was instrumental in extending the Ethiopian caravan trade. Unfortunately, Ethiopia was not chosen for PTW ...

[Panag]

hi ,

, it would nice to see a different leader for each time period , ........

have a nice day

[War4ever]

panag, that is a great idea.....diffenet dynasties, different leaders....of all the "great" civilizations in the world had dynasties

[Konquest02]

great idea panag, but try to get an Aztec leader for modern times or a 4000 BC leader of America. Other than that, I really like your idea...

--Kon--

[Panag]

Originally posted by Konquest02
great idea panag, but try to get an Aztec leader for modern times or a 4000 BC leader of America. Other than that, I really like your idea...

--Kon--

hi ,

if we where to use our imagination and some research we could get there , .....

, some civs should get faster into a time period then others , .....

firaxis , what ya say , .....

have a nice day

[Bonaparte]

I'd get rid of Bismark, Joan of Arc, and Montezuma .... none of them ever built a worthwhile civilization in all the many games I played and were always the first ones to be eliminated. Besides that I do not remember Joan of Arc ever ruling anything.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Michael7586
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.

I think that Edward I as the british leader would outrage scotts, he execuited William Wallace.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Bonaparte
I'd get rid of Bismark, Joan of Arc, and Montezuma .... none of them ever built a worthwhile civilization in all the many games I played and were always the first ones to be eliminated.

That has nothing to do with the suitableness of the leaders for the countries. That's just how the civilizations play. You could change the leaders to whatever you want, and they would still play the same.

And who would you replace Montezuma with, anyway? I can't name any other Aztecs...

[Boris Godunov]

Of all the British leaders, no single one did more to propel Britain into greatness and domination than Elizabeth I. She is a suitable choice.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


That has nothing to do with the suitableness of the leaders for the countries. That's just how the civilizations play. You could change the leaders to whatever you want, and they would still play the same.

And who would you replace Montezuma with, anyway? I can't name any other Aztecs...

With Montezuma the elder, of course, so the name stays the same. He got the empire going.
Since he was the ancestor of the Montezuma who met the Spanish, we need not change the picture either.