CivIII Animated leader-Germans - Page 2

Rasputin · August 4, 2001, 13:01

The thing with history is that the winners of wars write history, so we only ever will know the story of Hitler from one side. He did reunite the Germans including Austria into his Reich. The Prussians used to rule a lot of Poland areas too (cant rember who was first probably poles) so that was why he invaded Poland. So all his initial wars were to reclaim territory that Germans claimed as their own, probably rightly so. The germans lost WW1 and had their territotries divided up somewhat. The English and French declared war on Hitler and so began WW2 .

From the german point of view they were all rightous acts, just like the American war of independance.

Hitler is mainly frowned upon due to the holocasut connection but Jews have been killed in large numbers in russia too but because Stalin was on winning side he is not so bad by history books...

Alexander I · August 4, 2001, 13:13

The real nation of Poland was historically a little east of it's present location.

Present Poland's eastern half is the western half of old Poland.
It's western half is the former Germanic kingdom of Prussia, given to Poland after World War II.

Through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Pact, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia made a deal splitting Poland. Germany got one half, Russia the other.

After the war, since Germany lost, all its conquered territories were returned. Unfortunately, parts of German territories were taken from Germany and given to other countries, forcing the ethnic Germans to flee.

Russia still has the Prussian city of Koenigsberg and surrounding territories, renamed "Kaliningrad' after a Communist minister. (They renamed Leningrad and Stalingrad, but not Kaliningrad).

And the Polish territory taken by Russia is now in the hands of Belarus and Ukraine, I believe.

Wernazuma III · August 4, 2001, 14:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Rasputin
So all his initial wars were to reclaim territory that Germans claimed as their own, probably rightly so.

With the small addition that hitler always spoke of necessary "living space" for germans in the east. and between a claim and a liberation act there is no difference?

Though I don't like the austrian regime we had before Hitler it has to be said that they didn't wish the Anschluß. And in an anonymous vote the outcome would not have been clear, therefore Hitler invaded the day before the plebiscite.

Quote:

From the german point of view they were all rightous acts, just like the American war of independance.

just shut up. from serbian point of view, all the balcan wars where righteous acts

Quote:

Hitler is mainly frowned upon due to the holocasut connection but Jews have been killed in large numbers in russia too but because Stalin was on winning side he is not so bad by history books...

it's right that stalin too was an antisemitic bastard. but you can't compare organized annihilation of a people with the stalinist terror. Aim of Hitler was the complete genocide of jewish and gipsy people - and there IS a difference to stalin...

Gangerolf · August 4, 2001, 14:33

Isn't the "anonymous Frederick" from civ1&2 in fact Frederick the Great? At least his portrait in civ1 indicates that.
Anyway, I voted Bismarck, because he united Germany (and he looks pretty cool with his spike helmet.)

Alexander I · August 4, 2001, 14:41

The portrait in CivII cannot possibly be Frederick the Great because he reigned in the 1700s - he had a powdered white wig for Pete's sake. The image in CivII was medieval-esque. Perhaps they meant Frederick Barbarossa, but since it lacked his trademark red beard (Barbarossa), I feel it cannot be him. Perhaps it is Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor. I don;t know for sure.

I wouldn't mind Bismarck either. Wilhelm II would be cool too, with his pointy mustache.

Kassiopeia · August 4, 2001, 15:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Martinus
Well, it must have been a great history book, since Hitler was born in 1889 and Bismarck died in 1898

. I think you may be confusing him with Hindenburg.

*blushes*

&[?!#"£€%@£¤¤#" !!!

*bows and sheepisly leaves the thread after serious embarrasment*

jsw363 · August 5, 2001, 11:08

I don't think that Maria Theresa could be considered the leader of the German Nation (at least historically).

Maria Teresa fought against Frederick II of Prussia many times during her reign, but most notably in the Silesian War and the Seven Years War. The Hapsburgs were NOT German, though for many years they controlled the Holy Roman Empire. She did speak German and consider herself culturally and ethnically German.

Frederick II's Prussia is much more "German". When the German states were unified under Bismark and Wilhelm it was Wilhelm and the Hollenzolern monarchy of PRUSSIA which became the monarchs of the new Germany. Austria was deliberately excluded from the new German state because the Hapsburgs were considered too powerful to incorporate into the new nation.

The Austrians didn't become part of Germany until the Anschluss just before WWII. Therefore I would argue that they are separate states, briefly connected, but indubitably separate. If Fireaxis chooses to include her as the leader of the Germans, then perhaps they should reread their history books. I find it difficult to believe that the leader of a country which founght a war with the German states could be considered the leader of those same states.

Martinus · August 5, 2001, 11:18

Quote:

Originally posted by jsw363
I don't think that Maria Theresa could be considered the leader of the German Nation (at least historically).

Maria Teresa fought against Frederick II of Prussia many times during her reign, but most notably in the Silesian War and the Seven Years War. The Hapsburgs were NOT German, though for many years they controlled the Holy Roman Empire. She did speak German and consider herself culturally and ethnically German.

The Hapsburgs WERE German. The family orginated from the Archduchy of Austria which has always been considered a part of the First Reich (even more than Prussia at first - which was created by the Brandenburg Marchy which subjugated the local Slavs). The fact that Austrians spoke and speak a dialect of German seems to indicate the German connection, doesn't it?

Quote:

The Austrians didn't become part of Germany until the Anschluss just before WWII. Therefore I would argue that they are separate states, briefly connected, but indubitably separate. If Fireaxis chooses to include her as the leader of the Germans, then perhaps they should reread their history books. I find it difficult to believe that the leader of a country which founght a war with the German states could be considered the leader of those same states.

What do you mean "briefly connected"? They were the part of the First Reich from app. 10th century till the early 19th.
And the fact that they waged wars with German states is irrelevant - so did Prussia, Saxony, Pfalz, Hessen and many others. The Thirty Years War was not an exception.

Solver · August 5, 2001, 11:46

Guys, I think you're getting very off-topic in this thread.

campmajor! · August 5, 2001, 11:49

Actually it should be Helmut Kohl!

He has done a great job the last decade!

BeBro · August 5, 2001, 13:28

I´m for the medieval emperor Friedrich II., "stupor mundi", who "won" his crusade via negotiations - against the will of the pope. Pretty clever I think

BeBro · August 5, 2001, 13:30

Quote:

Originally posted by campmajor!
Actually it should be Helmut Kohl!

He has done a great job the last decade!

O my god, no!

d_dudy · August 5, 2001, 16:57

hey solver, they wouldn't have gotten off topic if you didn't let us know how much you hated stalin and hitler.

Germany has been so divided for so long it's damn near impossible to pick a leader. but who was the tribal cheiftan who defeated the romans when they wanted to conquer and civilive germany as they had gaul. they should get that guy.

rasputin is scaring me

BeBro · August 5, 2001, 17:06

I think you mean Arminius, leader of the German tribes in the Teutoburg battle - three Roman legions were lost there.

However, I think he should not be taken for Civ3 - just my personal view

Alexander I · August 5, 2001, 23:30

Arminius was the Latinization by the Romans of his German name, "Hermann," which in English is of course, "Herman." He'd be good an in ancient civs only game, but with so many more options for the Germans, I don't consider him very likely.

Also, how did Adolf Hitler get 9 votes? That's second place! Come on people! I think it's pretty safe to say that Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin will not be present in CivIII because they are "politically incorrect." (Except of course, in a Second World War scenario.)

SerapisIV · August 6, 2001, 17:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Gangerolf
Anyway, I voted Bismarck, because he united Germany (and he looks pretty cool with his spike helmet.)

I'd like to see Bismarck too, especially because of his spiked helmet. We need more Hells Angels look-a-likes in Civ3.

I'd say that odds are Firaxis is staying traditional and keeping Frederick the Great from Civ 1+2 . Though I think it would be a great feature if in games where the Germans were not present that Frederick the Great was available as a great military leader. He was one of the greatest European generals, particularly in terms of keeping his armies better trained and more mobile then the armies of opposing nations.

Alexander I · August 7, 2001, 00:32

Having entered the Civ series with CivII and never experienced classic CivI, I don't know if Frederick the Great was the leader or not. But in CivII (at least according to the portrait), the leader couldn't be Frederick the Great, the picture was simply to old for our Prussian friend. I wouldn't mind seeing him in CivIII, though. It looks like Bismarck has the support of the people, however, followed closely by ...Hitler.

Come on, people!

connorkimbro · August 7, 2001, 01:17

i agree that germany's leader should not be hitler, nor do i think russian's leader should be stalin.

usually, when playing a game, you're side is supposed to be the GOOD side. . it's just a game of course, but i personally don't like the default choices to be someone looked on as evil.

BSH · August 10, 2001, 16:33

The German leader ought to be Hitler, to be consistent with the leader of China. Actually, I don't support Hitler for the German leader, but I do want to see Mao gone. Debating over how monstrous a monster is seems unproductive. A monster is a monster, and lets not have them.

B

redfox74 · August 12, 2001, 13:34

To Alexander01:

Just for your information:
Germany - Poland - Russia

Germany:

Many of the contemporary East German cities were founded by the Slavs and then (beginning of the 2nd millenium) conquered by Germans. Examples: Luebeck - Lubice, Schwerin - Zwerin, Rostock - Rostok, Brandenburg - Branibor, Guben - Gubin, Meissen - Mishny, Leipzig - Lipsk, .... even Berlin arose from 2 slavonic villages.

Poland:

The western part of Poland also was initially slavonic.

Russia:

Parts of Poland, which were integrated into the USSR in 1939 were always populated by White Russians (Belarus) and Ukrainians. There were only few percent of polish popoulation.

After 1945 Koenigsberg came to Russia. It was IMHO a relatively small revenge for the "Drang nach Osten", which lasted for many centuries.

Sorry for offtopic