REAL HEROES NAMES for each civ (please participate in this project)

[Cossack]

To Molly Bloom,

I have no doubt as to your military knowledge, but as I said before, great leaders should be known to the common man and therefore I refer you to the previous comment by EL awrence. Seems that your favourite really isn't that well known.

Kind regards
Ïîøåë òû

The English Cossack

[Kickasso]

Guys, Cossack and Molly, please be more constructive in your discussion.

I'm glad that you all know your country/nation history so well and both really concerned to help me and try to offer right selection among great number of English heroes.

But please avoid any insults (Cossack, I don't think Molly knows russian but I know) on this forum and respect each other's opinion. I will be very dissapointed if you quarrel here because of your different views on history.

Thus I have 11 candidates to English Heroes List:

1. Boudicca - at least 6 people here mentioned her
2. Alfred the Great
3. Harold - Cossack and couple other guys offered him
4. Richard the Lionheart
5. Edward I 'Longshanks'
6. Henry V
7. George Monk - supported by Molly Bloom and one-two others
8. Kitchener - El Awrence, you was really persistent
9. James Wolfe - Cossack it's your candidate with great story
10. Wellington
11. Montgomery

Who do you think must be excluded? I know less about Harold, Kitchener and Wolfe but I'm not Englishman to make final decision. You do it please - I will be waiting your top 8 lists and their mean value will be the final list.

Is that idea appropriate here?

Kickasso

[Dr. Nick]

Woohoo!



Also, I'd scrap Harold and Richard the Lionhearted... Harold won Stamford Bridge which, in the big picture, was supposed to be the diversion. And Richard, well, Holywood and anti-John monks have made him a terribly overrated historical figure.

[GodKing]

For an american, why not Ike. (Eisenhower). He was allied commander in ww2 prior to being president from 1953-61. Also, Roosivelt was in the Rough Riders durring the US - Spanish war.

For the Iroquois:
Tecumseh 1786-1813, Shawnee Leader & war chief
Pontiac (no, not the car, but the man who the car was named after) 1720-1769 Ottawa Chief. Liked to play Lacross with "White Mans Head".
Joseph circa 1875. Chief of the Nez Perce.

A lot of good names, places & dates can be found on Historychannel.com

Peace

Judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it

[godinex]

Are You interested in Costa Rican Ones???

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kickasso
Guys, Cossack and Molly, please be more constructive in your discussion.

I'm glad that you all know your country/nation history so well and both really concerned to help me and try to offer right selection among great number of English heroes.

But please avoid any insults (Cossack, I don't think Molly knows russian but I know) on this forum and respect each other's opinion. I will be very dissapointed if you quarrel here because of your different views on history.

Thus I have 11 candidates to English Heroes List:

1. Boudicca - at least 6 people here mentioned her
2. Alfred the Great
3. Harold - Cossack and couple other guys offered him
4. Richard the Lionheart
5. Edward I 'Longshanks'
6. Henry V
7. George Monk - supported by Molly Bloom and one-two others
8. Kitchener - El Awrence, you was really persistent
9. James Wolfe - Cossack it's your candidate with great story
10. Wellington
11. Montgomery

Who do you think must be excluded? I know less about Harold, Kitchener and Wolfe but I'm not Englishman to make final decision. You do it please - I will be waiting your top 8 lists and their mean value will be the final list.

Is that idea appropriate here?

Kickasso

Thanks again for your comments- still think you're doing a great job.

I'll reiterate my reasons for not including Boudicca- she was a Celt, and as the Celts and English are included in Civ II, it seems pointless to include her here in a list of 'English' heroes, when 'English' is a term derived from the invaders/conquerors/successors of the Celts, post-Roman exodus.
Even if we mean 'English' to be inclusive of the pre-Anglo-Saxon invasion, it makes as much sense to include the Golden Horde or Tartars on a list of Russian heroes, simply becuase they once lived in areas of what is now modern Russia.
'British' would be a more correct term, but inevitably you would get an even longer argument about which Scots and Welsh and Irish commanders/leaders to include, and in any case, the lack of naval leaders already distorts the picture somewhat, when British is more often used in an 18th Century and later, British Empire context.

If I may, could I offer some comments on the list as is?

i) Keep Alfred- defended the kingdom of Wessex against Guthrum's Danes, organised a navy to combat further Viking attacks, was an able and learned king, did much to increase 'English' culture and civilization, encouraged links with the Carolingian Empire and the Mediterranean. Also represents early 'English' history

ii) Keep Harold Godwineson- the last of the 'English' rulers, prior to the Norman French conquest- his forced march south from the battle with Harald Hardrada and Tostig and the valiant fight against William the Bastard are more of a chivalric epic than many a later mediaeval romance.

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titles/1841762113

iii) Keep Longshanks- the Hammer of the Scots (and the Welsh) you need someone from early mediaeval England that personifies the successes of the Anglo-Norman rulers and their struggles to subdue the Welsh and Scots.

http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon30.html

iv) Keep Henry V- immortalized on film by Olivier (during another struggle against a Continental based foe) and Branagh in modern times, and in Shakespeare's (mostly lacklustre) play- the famous St Crispin Crispian's Day speech, 'Once more unto the breach' and the battle of Agincourt encapsulate for some an ideal of 'English' heroism.

v) There is no-one from England's Golden Age ( Tudor and Stuart and Commonwealth), as the defeats inflicted on Philip II of Spain were almost entirely naval victories, and for reasons already stated, you have decided to exclude naval commanders, as the great leaders are generated on land in the game. This being the case, then my suggestion for Monck still stands- less controversial than Mountjoy in Ireland, or Cromwell in Ireland or Scotland or England. He represents the beginnings of 'English/British' Empire with several victories over the Dutch and their best naval commanders, Tromp and De Ruyter, but is also known for his victories over the Scots on land- and as I have mentioned elsewhere, did a little something to restore the monarchy and parliamentary rule.

vi) The Duke of Marlborough- almost entirely consistently victorious in various conflicts with the armies of Louis XIV, in partnership with Prince Eugene of Savoy- and of course ancestor of Churchill.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/08083.html

vii) Wolfe's victory at the Heights of Abraham represents the unorthodox aspect of the 'English/British' army that I admire so much (see also Orde Wingate, q.v.)- it was the death knell for the long reign of the French in North America, led to the formation of Canada (a country I love) and again encapsulates for some the idea of the 'English/British' hero, like Lord Nelson, sacrificing all for country.

http://encarta.msn.com/index/concise...?z=1&pg=2&br=1

viii) Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington- victorious in India and the Pensinsula Wars in Spain against the Bonapartist forces, and of course at that moderately well-known engagement, the Battle of Waterloo- a close run thing, nonetheless, but which saw the end of French Imperial ambitions (despite Napoleon III's dreams) in continental Europe. If we can't have Nelson, then his land based counterpart should be in.

http://www.britannia.com/bios/wellesley.html


I did not include Montgomery, beacuse there is still controversy, even amongst the British, as to his abilities as a commander- although I incline to view him as an able opponent for Erwin Rommel.

I have not included Kitchener (sorry El Awrence) because I believe his victory at Omdurman and his raising of the 'New Armies' and prescient view of WWI are for me overshadowed by his tactical shortsightedness during Gallipoli, and his involvement in the Boer Wars.

Richard the Lionheart I have not included because too many of his victories in the Holy Land were characterized by the concomitant massacre of Jews and Orthodox Christians, and because Salah ud Din better personifies chivalry than he does (for me). As a ruler of England he was ineffective.

I hope you find these observations helpful- to me a hero is not someone who happens to be well-known simply because he was on a poster, or there's a mediaeval romance about him. History is a process of remembering, forgetting and rediscovering, and the forging of England's first professional army, the New Model Army, should not go unheralded, nor should the English Commonwealth and its republican experiment.

[Encomium]

Let me just add that PERSHING and EISENHOWER should be American leaders.

[Kickasso]

Cool, isn't it?

Americans brought many new candidates - thanks guys! Now I have to introduce updated...

American Heroes List:
1. Washington
2. Grant
3. Lee
4. Sherman
5. Jackson
6. MacArthur
7. Patton
8. Pershing OR Eisenhower OR Roosivelt - 3 new persons! I personally prefer Pershing because his clear military history and also because I know a little about other two...but you probably prefer Eisenhower - right?


Iroquios updated Heroes List:
1. Tecumseh
2. Red Cloud
3. Black Hawk
4. Sitting Bull
5. Crazy Horse
6. Geronimo
7. Pontiac
8. Joseph Circa OR Louis Riel OR Joseph Brant (thanks to GodKing and Tingkai)

Only one question to experts: Are they all Iroquios or partly Sioux, Apache and other tribe heroes?

Regarding English list, thanks Molly for your message but I will also wait Cossack's vote and after that get the final decision.

godinex Are You interested in Costa Rican Ones???

Well who were tribes who lived on that territory before it named Costa Rica? Maya? if so it's optionally interesting...(i'd say more personal than project interest)

[Rosacrux]

There is no debate - Ike was 99% a politician or politician-pet and 1% a military commander. Of course the size of the allied forces and the fact that they were multinational, demanded a good politician in the highest chair, rather than a solid commander. But he didn't do much - other won this war for him.

And if Roosevelt is FDR... hell, the man is certainly the best president USA ever had (not that the competition is excactly astounding ) but not a military leader by any account.

If you go for a WW2 era military leader (and I think you should) try Patton. Solid leadership, aggresive, loved by his soldiers, won great victories.

And... Since USA is the world leading power nowadays and it's forces have been tried in the field of war recently... why not "stormin" Norman or Colin Powel?

Edit

Oops... you got Patton there already. OK, the comments stand though.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Rosacrux
There is

And if Roosevelt is FDR... hell, the man is certainly the best president USA ever had (not that the competition is excactly astounding ) but not a military leader by any account.

And... Since USA is the world leading power nowadays and it's forces have been tried in the field of war recently... why not "stormin" Norman or Colin Powel?

Edit

Oops... you got Patton there already. OK, the comments stand though.

I suspect the reason for not including Schwarzkopf and Colin Powell is the obvious one- the triumph of propaganda over facts.
This is not to gainsay their victories, but to merely point out that in compiling lists of national heroes based on military victories or strategy, they hardly compare with Turenne, Marlborough, Sun Tzu or Tuthmosis III.

They should not be included for this main reason, that they have not yet stood the test of time, and history's judgment.

The Roosevelt being referenced is F.D.R.'s relative, I suspect, Theodore. Again, I think the reason for including him is less to do with military capabilities (and if we are talking about heroes/great leaders being generated by battlefield victories, surely that is important) but with the beneficial aura conferred on the part he played in the Spanish-American War, from his successful stint as President.

I find it odd that Nathan Bedford Forrest, a much better tactician and military leader would not be included- even though I loathe the principles for which he fought.

http://ngeorgia.com/people/forrest.html

[Taxidopolis]

Originally posted by Kickasso

1. Boudicca - at least 6 people here mentioned her
2. Alfred the Great
3. Harold - Cossack and couple other guys offered him
4. Richard the Lionheart
5. Edward I 'Longshanks'
6. Henry V
7. George Monk - supported by Molly Bloom and one-two others
8. Kitchener - El Awrence, you was really persistent
9. James Wolfe - Cossack it's your candidate with great story
10. Wellington
11. Montgomery

Who do you think must be excluded? I know less about Harold, Kitchener and Wolfe but I'm not Englishman to make final decision. You do it please - I will be waiting your top 8 lists and their mean value will be the final list.

Kickasso - why is it necessary to drop any of these leaders ? Doesn't the editor support more than 8 leader names ? Last time I used it I did a complete rewrite of city names, extra to the ones originally in the list, no probs doing that....and I just checked the leader list and see it has room for lots more names than are in at present. Excuse the question if it's andwered elsewhere, I aint seen it in the thread.

[Cossack]

To Kickasso and Molly Bloom,

Molly Bloom's list is pretty top notch now so I will concede on the Monck issue, shame we can't get any Naval Great Leaders in the game, as so many of ours our, particularly with our Unique unit being the Man 'o War. Apologies for the Russian abuse, bad day at the office.

Cheers

Cossack

[Kickasso]

Ok..so as I see you've found golden mean for English Heroes List

Let it be the following:

1. Alfred the Great - no opposition

2. Harold Godwineson - fresh new

3. Richard the Lionheart - for non-english people he's one of the most
famous guys in English history

4. Edward I 'Longshanks' - no opposition

5. Henry V - the same

6. Duke of Marlborough - merit alternative to Kitchener and Monk

7. James Wolfe - no opposition but less glorious than any other (but seems excellent soldier)

8. Wellington - any oppositions?

That's it!!!

Out of the list: Montgomery - sorry but he's not so victorious as others; Kitchener and Monk - not so brilliant as Marlborough; Boudicca - not "complete" English Hero (pity isn't it?)


For American Heroes list is the same:
1. Washington
2. Grant
3. Lee
4. Pershing
5. Sherman
6. Jackson
7. MacArthur
8. Patton

I remind that I need you comments on the Iroqs list

1. Tecumseh
2. Red Cloud
3. Black Hawk
4. Sitting Bull
5. Crazy Horse
6. Geronimo
7. Pontiac
8. Joseph Circa OR Louis Riel OR Joseph Brant

Also there 2 positions of 128 are vacant: last Zulu and Japanese heroes

Thanks to all for almost finished work!...

P.S. Cossack, where do you work in Moscow? You have wrote about some hassles - if you need any help/advice/... write me on kickasso@c4.com and we can meet to disscuss any worried issue. Regards!

[Salvor]

I'm kind of a latecomer to this thread, and must say I'm impressed with what I've read here, and not having to sift through pages of mindless flames was very nice, for once.

I don't really want to get into the English debate, but I have to say I think the inclusion of Richard I is a poor one. Maybe you could put him on the French list. After all, he lived there, he ruled there, he spoke their language, his wife was from there as were both his parents (in fact his mother was Queen there for a while), and he was buried there. And he considered himself a subject of the French king as vassal for his lands in Aquitaine and Anjou (but I think he ruled Normandy, Brittany, and Gascony outright -- my memory isn't what it used to be so I might be wrong there).

I also have a question about the American list. When you say Jackson, do you mean Andrew Jackson or Thomas J. Jackson? Both could qualify, as both were very inspirational and effective military leaders.

As for the Iroquois list, I don't think any of those were Iroquois, but I take their inclusion as representative of all native American people, so don't object to their non-Iroquois background. But Sitting Bull was a shaman, not a military leader. He didn't participate in any battles. He was a great man, but not a military hero. I would exclude him on those grounds.

As for the French, all I'll say is I was surprised that Marshall Ney was dismissed so quickly.

As for the Romans, why limit them to the old Roman Empire? You include Mexican heroes with the Aztecs, and modern Greeks with the Greeks, so why not include more modern Italian heroes? Victor Emmanuel (sp?) comes to mind immediately, and I'm sure you could add one of the Medicis, or other leaders from after the fall of Rome. I'd leave Il Duce out, though.

You could use the same premise to fill out your Zulu list. Although folks like Biko, Tutu, and Mandela are peace-lovers, there have got to be other modern Africans with creditable military records. Sorry I don't know enough about that part of history to contribute much.

[GodKing]

I suspect the Jackson listed on the American list was T.J. 'Stonewall' Jackson, Confederite General of the US Civil War. But you are correct that we do have several military leaders named Jackson, so why not let the name represent them all.

I think most people are acceptable to the idea of the Iroquois representing all the native North American tribes (US & Canada - but sorry not Mexico or the other Central American countries). It would make a great scenario later on to diferentiate the tribes.... By my understanding, the Iroquois were a fairly peacefull people.

Circa was not a last name, I used it in the date to mean on or about that year. I don't think that Joseph had a last name, but I am not sure. As there are two people with the name Joseph, why not just use Joseph?

Ike was a politician first, and Pershing was a good general. Forrest was a great general, possibly one of our best (tactical wise), but an embarisment to the country for his pollitics, thus I would not want to glorify him in this game.

In the game, the great leaders are most often used (at least by myself) to rush construction on some wonders. Thus I do not think that only there tactical genius should be used as criteria, but there ability to lead not only in war but in peace and to help their county in other peacefull areas. Eisenhower was the mastermind behind the construction of the US Interstate highway system. Although he didn't come up with the idea, as president he was instrumental in pushing the idea thru Congress and getting the money to spend on it. I don't know how many people are familiar with our Interstate Hichway system, but as a Civil Engineer I do believe it to be one of the modern wonders of the world. (at least a minor one )

Thanks for reading. Sorry about the spelling - I do stink at it even after 30 odd years. Peace.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kickasso
Ok..so as I see you've found golden mean for English Heroes List

Let it be the following:

3. Richard the Lionheart - for non-english people he's one of the most
famous guys in English history

Out of the list: Montgomery - sorry but he's not so victorious as others; Kitchener and Monk - not so brilliant as Marlborough; Boudicca - not "complete" English Hero (pity isn't it?)

I agree with you he's famous, Kickasso- even has a statue outside the Houses of Parliament. But he was an ineffective King of England (an absentee ruler, present for a bare six months), more Angevin/French in his outlook and interests- hardly spoke English. Also, his victories are marred by excessive and wanton cruelty to non-combatants- Jews and Orthodox Christians. In a way, it would be like being proud of an Einsatzgruppe commander if you were German....

I think you can see it like this- there's the historical Richelieu, and then there's the character in Dumas's novel. Similarly, there's the historical Richard, and then there's the Walter Scott and Hollywood creation. Of course, even an absentee monarch might seem a good ruler in comparison with his successor and brother, John Lackland, who lost the possessions in France, save for Gascony and the Channel Islands, alienated the nobility, carried out pogroms/extortion against the Jews, and had his nephew Arthur murdered.

http://www.igc.apc.org/ddickerson/cliffords-tower.html

But bear in mind- Richard's excessive taxation to pay for his Crusades, paved the way for many of the disasters of John's reign.

If you won't have Monck then at least have Cromwell- he organised the New Model Army (England's first professional army) his rule saw the foundation of the military successes against enemies at home (the Scots, the Irish, the Royalists) and abroad- the Dutch, the Spanish, and he did what the Stuart monarchs could not- united England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales under one rule.

[Kickasso]

Sorry, friends for so long delay in posting - I was sick (and still slightly sick and bedridden- typical influenza)

As soon as I be back I finish All Lists - I found 2 last guys to complete this work!

See you very soon now!

[Signa]

I know I'm about a month late or so, but there hero you need to know about...

Parmenio

He was Alexander's right hand man, just like Mark Antony to Caesar. He was a brillant tactican, and he did a lot of the actual leading due to Alexander was off fighting in the battle himself. At the Battle near Arbela, his tactic stunt with Thessalian cavalry was the only thing that kept the Macedonian line from rupturing, giving time for Alexander's Companions to force Darius to flee. He also instrumented the un-famous light cavalry charge and outflanking of the Thebian phalanx at Chaeronea. Even before that he traveled throughout Ionia (back when he worked for Philip) and scouted out possible battlefields, the Persian defenders, and the fortified cities (giving Alexander invaluable knowledge of the defenses of the city of Halicanarsius (I butchered that spelling ). Without his brillant tactics and advice, Alexander might of lost a Gancius. He is not famous at all, but due to the smushing of the Hellan civilizations into the "Greeks" and the need for another one I think he should be in for a Great Leader, which he was by all means.

[SieGermans]

redundant, and probably well known, but fun anyways
American heros
Washington
Ticonderoga
Jackson
Perry
Grant
Sherman
Roosevelt
Pershing
MacArthur
Eisenhower
Bradley
Nimitz
Wilson
North (both Vietnam)
Schwarzkopf
Powell

[SieGermans]

and Patton ^

[Cairo_East]

For perfectly fitting the concept of an American "hero", the one person who hasn't been mentioned is Stephen Decatur. Decatur almost single-handedly kept the USA from falling prey to English and Barbary economic warfare by fighting and winning key battles at sea. Without Decatur, the US Navy would not have beenas strong as it was during the early 19th century and overall foreign policy would have been severely weakened without him. You could say that Decatur "made" the U.S. Navy.

Also, Persching must be included on the list. He was the single most important general in America from 1865 to the present.

As a student of African history, I must agree with most of the Zulu choices, although I've never heard of Nehanda. I'll try to look him up. Two other choices for Zulu political heroes would be Dingiswayo, who ruled what would eventually become the Zulu nation when Shaka was the chief military strategist. Without Dingiswayo, Shaka would certainly have never risen to the heights of power that he rose to. Also, the current leader of the Zulu politcal party IFP, M. Buthelezi, might be a possible choice. It is a bit of a stretch, though.

[SieGermans]

Would you consider it reasonable to put Boer heros in with Zulu heros? I mean, they basically fought alongside each other against the English during the 1890s. Kruger is the leader of the Boer uprising. Since Boers are just as much a part of South African history as Zulus are it only seems feasible.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by SieGermans
Would you consider it reasonable to put Boer heros in with Zulu heros? I mean, they basically fought alongside each other against the English during the 1890s. Kruger is the leader of the Boer uprising. Since Boers are just as much a part of South African history as Zulus are it only seems feasible.

Mmm, makes as much sense as having Sitting Bull as an American (not Native American) hero.

I can just see Eugene Terre Blanche and Hendrik Verwoerd's reactions at being classed as honorary Zulus.

'Black people were involved as combatants, to a limited degree, though both sides initially agreed that they were to be employed in a noncombatant role. At least 15000 blacks were armed by the British and served in mobile British columns that tried to track down the Boer commando's.

ii About 25000 served as armed blockhouse guards.

iii They were also employed on the Imperial Military Railway system. '

and:

'The Boer Wars was the name given to the South African Wars of 1880-1 and 1899-1902, that were fought between the British and the descendants of the Dutch settlers (Boers) in Africa. After the first Boer War William Gladstone granted the Boers self-government in the Transvaal.

The Boers, under the leadership of Paul Kruger, resented the colonial policy of Joseph Chamberlain and Alfred Milner which they feared would deprive the Transvaal of its independence. After receiving military equipment from Germany, the Boers had a series of successes on the borders of Cape Colony and Natal between October 1899 and January 1900. Although the Boers only had 88,000 soldiers, led by the outstanding soldiers such as Louis Botha, and Jan Smuts, the Boers were able to successfully besiege the British garrisons at Ladysmith, Mafeking and Kimberley.

Army reinforcements arrived in South Africa in 1900 and counter-offences relieved the garrisons and enabled the British to take control of the Boer capital, Pretoria, on 5th June. For the next two years groups of Boer commandos raided isolated British units in South Africa. Lord Kitchener, the Chief of Staff in South Africa, reacted to this by destroying Boer farms and moving civilians into concentration camps. '

Timeline for the Anglo-Zulu War:

'Anglo-Zulu War [1879]
Ultimatum Tree [11 Dec. 1878]


Battle of Isandlwana [22 Jan. 1879]
Fugitives' Drift [22 Jan. 1879]
Battle of Rorke's Drift [22-23 Jan. 1879]


Battle of Inyezane [22 Jan. 1879]
Siege of Eshowe [23 Jan to 3 April 1879]
Battle of Gingindlovu [2 Apr. 1879]


Battle of Ntombe [12 Mar. 1879]
Battle of Hlobane and Kambula [28 and 29 Mar. 1879]

The Death of the Prince Imperial

The Second Invasion

Battle of Ulundi [4 Jul. 1879]'

The Zulu War was over 2 years before the first Anglo-Boer War began.

One of the excuses given by apartheid apologists for discrimination against black South Africans was the arming of them by the British in the Anglo-Boer Wars.

See: http://www.artsdiary.org.za/guide99/boerwar.html

[WesW]

If you guys have settled most of the civs, could someone post a file with the results all on one list? No numbering or anything, so that we can cut-n-paste into the bic.

[Beren]

Possible Egyptian heros:
Ramses, Cheops, Khufu, Mentuhotep, Seti, Na'rmer, Thutmose, Haremhah, Seti, Hatshepsut, Amosis, Menes, Amenophis, Necho, Nasser, Mubarak

Possible Babylonian heros:
Nebuchadnezzar, Belshezzar, Croesus, Telepinus, Nebuch, Astyages, Nabonidus, Nabopolassar
(If meant to include entire Mesopotamia:
Sargon, Sennacherib, Ashurbanipal, Shalmaneser, Essarhaddon, Ashurnasilpal, Adad-Niravi, Shamah, Urukagina, Lugalzaggesi, Enheduanna, Mesannepada, Gilgamesh, Naram Sin, Rimush, Lugalbanda, Enmerkar, Tigliathpileser)

Possible Persian heros:
Cyrus, Darius, Achaemenes, Bessus, Mardonius, Cambyses, Spitamenes, Artaphernes, Datis, Rukr, Hormidz, Chosroes II, Yakub, Bahram, Yazdegird, Mohammed Shah, Kavadh, Mondhir

Thanks to AoE/AoK

I don't know about selecting out of these names. Somebody else will have to do that.

[Taxidopolis]

[/QUOTE[I'll reiterate my reasons for not including Boudicca- she was a Celt, and as the Celts and English are included in Civ II, it seems pointless to include her here in a list of 'English' heroes, when 'English' is a term derived from the invaders/conquerors/successors of the Celts, post-Roman exodus.
Even if we mean 'English' to be inclusive of the pre-Anglo-Saxon invasion, it makes as much sense to include the Golden Horde or Tartars on a list of Russian heroes, simply becuase they once lived in areas of what is now modern Russia.
'British' would be a more correct term, but inevitably you would get an even longer argument about which Scots and Welsh and Irish commanders/leaders to include, and in any case, the lack of naval leaders already distorts the picture somewhat, when British is more often used in an 18th Century and later, British Empire context.
[/QUOTE]

This has been irritating me, the whole 'Celts' notion. The only Celts known to have called themselves by that name were in Gaul, one of the three tribes mentioned by Caesar. The rest is a mishmash of modern invention, conflation of art style with a highly variable archaeological material culture, the fallacy of equating a language label (celtic) with an actual people.

Simply because Civ2 perpetuates this pseudo-history doesn't mean that we should allow it to continue forever and ever unchallenged.

Boudica was not a Celt. She was if anything British as you say. The Roman writers were aware of this, as distinct from being 'Celts'.My point in appealing for her inclusion in a list of English heroes is that the British native culture was never appropriated by the Romans...witness the survival of Cornish as a language up until a mere two hundred years ago. The roots of England surely lie within the cultural swirl of Boudicca's time, she and her British tribe are factually known and known to have resided in the East of modern day England, she is rightly regarded as a hero by modern English folk and should be included in the list.

If you stick to the modern meaning of England under the terms of your post then everybody post the 1066 conquest - when for a couple of hundred years 'England' was ruled by French speaking royal families - must be excluded from the list by default. The English nation had no sooner formed via the machinations of the likes of Offa, Alfred, Athelstan etc than it was conqured by William (himself having Viking connections if IIRC)

Anyways...Bring Back Boudica

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Taxidopolis


This has been irritating me, the whole 'Celts' notion. The only Celts known to have called themselves by that name were in Gaul, one of the three tribes mentioned by Caesar.
Boudica was not a Celt. She was if anything British as you say. The Roman writers were aware of this, as distinct from being 'Celts'.My point in appealing for her inclusion in a list of English heroes is that the British native culture was never appropriated by the Romans...witness the survival of Cornish as a language up until a mere two hundred years ago. The roots of England surely lie within the cultural swirl of Boudicca's time, she and her British tribe are factually known and known to have resided in the East of modern day England, she is rightly regarded as a hero by modern English folk and should be included in the list.

If you stick to the modern meaning of England under the terms of your post then everybody post the 1066 conquest - when for a couple of hundred years 'England' was ruled by French speaking royal families - must be excluded from the list by default. The English nation had no sooner formed via the machinations of the likes of Offa, Alfred, Athelstan etc than it was conqured by William (himself having Viking connections if IIRC)

Anyways...Bring Back Boudica

It's difficult to know where to begin to correct your misconceptions; the Celts are a people/s defined by their language- they never called themselves celts- why would they use a Greek term for themselves?- but were more likely to have used a variant of 'gael'- hence Galatia in Turkey, Galicia in former Celtiberica, Gaul in modern day France and Belgium, the Gaels of Ireland, Scotland and Man and as the French would have it, the Pays de Galles in Wales.
I was referring to Firaxis's separations of cultures/civilizations, and the great heroes generated by Civ 3. Given that the English (actually implying the British of the Empire) and the Celts are both present in Civ II, and that Firaxis for some unknown reason donated a Scots hero to the English, the idea was to sort out lists that had a logic to them.
Boudicca would not have recognised the term English or England, concepts that came into being centuries after her death. The first Saxon king to claim lordship over the former Roman province of Britannia called himself Aelle Bretwalda- lord of Britain.
I do not know why you say she was not a Celt. Do you imply she spoke a non-Celtic language? That she was a Pict?
As for her being 'British' as opposed to Celtic- the Celts are normally separated into two main linguistic groupings- the P Celts and the Q Celts. The Roman name Briton/Britannia and the Greek Pretanike (see Pytheas of Massilia)- if they had been speaking with a Q Celt in Britannia it would have been Quriteni in Latin, Kruthenike in Greek- cruts instead of brits.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Kickasso
I remind that I need you comments on the Iroqs list

1. Tecumseh
2. Red Cloud
3. Black Hawk
4. Sitting Bull
5. Crazy Horse
6. Geronimo
7. Pontiac
8. Joseph Circa OR Louis Riel OR Joseph Brant

This is NOT an Iroquois list!!!

Here is a proper one (alphabetic order):

1. Brant, Joseph (= Tyendinaga)
2. Canaqueese (= Jan Smit)
3. Canassatego
4. Cook, Lewis (Louis) (= Akiatonharokwen)
5. Cornplanter (= Jan Abeel, Kiontwogky)
6. Dekanawidah
7. King Hendrick (= Tiyanoga)
8. Honyere Tehawenkarogwen
9. Sagoyewatha (= Red Jacket)
10. Skenandoah (= Oskanondonha)

For the Romans you guys didn't have this guy in the list.

JULIUS CEASAR! He was a great general, one of the best! Just because he was a politician in the end doesn't take away his accomplishments as a General.

Octavian Ceasar should not be on the list. He started the Pax Romana and it lasted 200 years but he wasn't really involved in the military that much, especially since it was a very peaceful time period. He did make Rome rich, he use to say "I found Rome a town of brick and left it a city of marble" or something of that effect, but as for military commander, I don't think so.

And for the Greeks you missed a very very important person.

ALEXANDER THE GREAT! Possibly the best commander of all time! Come on fellas.

[Taxidopolis]

Originally posted by molly bloom


It's difficult to know where to begin to correct your misconceptions; the Celts are a people/s defined by their language- they never called themselves celts- why would they use a Greek term for themselves?- but were more likely to have used a variant of 'gael'- hence Galatia in Turkey, Galicia in former Celtiberica, Gaul in modern day France and Belgium, the Gaels of Ireland, Scotland and Man and as the French would have it, the Pays de Galles in Wales.
I was referring to Firaxis's separations of cultures/civilizations, and the great heroes generated by Civ 3. Given that the English (actually implying the British of the Empire) and the Celts are both present in Civ II, and that Firaxis for some unknown reason donated a Scots hero to the English, the idea was to sort out lists that had a logic to them.
Boudicca would not have recognised the term English or England, concepts that came into being centuries after her death. The first Saxon king to claim lordship over the former Roman province of Britannia called himself Aelle Bretwalda- lord of Britain.

To equate language use with ethnicity is grossly oversimplifying this. Americans speak English, Australians speak English, but we hardly label them as being English do we ? To treat the many different European groups of Roman and pre-Roman times that happen to share a related language as the same group - the Celts - is equally fallacious.

To correct your own misconception, and at the risk of repeating myself, the only people of this time to have actually called themselves Celts, or more correctly 'Celtae', were those reported by Caesar. They were in Gaul. Two other tribal names in the same region are given. These three tribes were different each from the other. As were the Iceni over the water in what is now Eastern England different. Sure, they shared a related language but this hardly makes them the same people/s. In that sense Boudica was most certainly not a Celt, she spoke a variant of the geographically wide ranging language labelled as Celtic, a very early branch of the Indo-European language tree which most of the European languages have come from.

Your other minor points: The Greek term has no direct bearing on anything here and I don't see why you even mention it. The Celtae in Gaul were speaking for themselves, albeit as reported by Caesar. They were not having words put into their mouths. You are perhaps confusing the Greek world view of circa 700BC which conveniently quartered the 'barbaric' world outside of their own, all peoples to the north being the Keltoi. How this relates archaeologically to Hallstatt and the subsequent La Tene horizons several hundreds of years later and over distant geographical locations, particularly in insular Britain, is pure conjecture.

Boudica pre-dated England and would obviously not be aware of the term England - What a daft point. This is like denying the importance of Babbage in computing simply because Babbage was unaware of the information revolution, or denying the part the Pilgrim Fathers played in American history because they were unaware of the modern political formation known as the United States .
More to the point is that she would not have been aware of, and couldn't have cared less about if she had, the contemporary Celtae on the continent. She was Iceni. The Romans never completely subjugated what is modern day England, let alone other areas. Nor did the Anglo-Saxons or the French.The survival of the Cornish language, another Celtic-language variant, until modern times is indisputable evidence of this. Just as the modern day inhabitants of Cornwall, English people, take a great pride in an insular cultural heritage that pre-dates the Romans, surely the modern day inhabitants of East Anglia, also English people, should be allowed to take pride in Boudica, as their earliest recorded war leader ? Her bones are dissolved in English soil, not in Gaul.

As for the bretwalda or byrytenwealda (Aelle Bretwalda is a new one to me) any ruler would have claimed this title and I ran through the best known historical bretwaldas we can be sure of prior to the Norman conquest. According to your simple linkage of language=cultural group, the just formed English(nee Anglo-Saxon) group finishes with the invasion of William - a French speaker of Viking lineage. Which severely limits the choice of Great Leaders for Civ 3 doesn't it.

Come on, Bring back Boudica I say